Patricia Ann Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 181 So. 3d 656

Background

On July 21, 2008, Patricia Thompson slipped on a puddle of water in front of a meat case while shopping at a Winn‑Dixie; no mat was deployed because a subcontractor employee (KAP) had rolled the mat up to mop and left the area unguarded.
Winn‑Dixie contracted janitorial services to SCSI, which subcontracted to KAP; KAP employee Veronica Hausner performed the mat‑rolling and left without placing wet‑floor warnings, contrary to KAP policy.
Plaintiff settled with SCSI and KAP pretrial; Winn‑Dixie defended and pursued third‑party fault against KAP for apportionment purposes.
A jury found KAP 70% at fault and Winn‑Dixie 30% at fault; the district court entered judgment on that verdict and split costs 50/50 between Winn‑Dixie and Thompson.
The court of appeal reversed as to apportionment, holding Winn‑Dixie statutorily 100% liable under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 and assessed all costs to Winn‑Dixie; the Louisiana Supreme Court granted review on apportionment.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, reinstating the jury’s 70/30 allocation (KAP/Winn‑Dixie) and restoring the district court’s 50/50 cost allocation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether La. R.S. 9:2800.6 makes a merchant (Winn‑Dixie) statutorily 100% liable for slip‑and‑fall injuries despite third‑party fault	Thompson argued the court of appeal correctly imposed full statutory liability on Winn‑Dixie and rejected apportionment to KAP	Winn‑Dixie argued comparative‑fault principles (La. C.C. arts. 2323/2324) apply and the jury’s 30% allocation should stand	Court held Articles 2323/2324 apply; a merchant is not automatically 100% liable for acts of third parties—apportionment required
Whether a merchant can contract away its statutory duties by hiring a contractor	Thompson argued allowing apportionment would enable merchants to avoid duties by contracting out	Winn‑Dixie argued contracting does not eliminate its duties but does permit apportionment when third‑party fault exists	Court held contracting does not eliminate merchant duties but does not prevent apportionment; merchant can be assigned less than 100% fault
Whether Winn‑Dixie exercised operational control over KAP such that Winn‑Dixie should be liable for KAP’s acts as principal	Thompson (and court of appeal) said contract terms and store practices showed Winn‑Dixie reserved supervisory control	Winn‑Dixie argued KAP remained an independent contractor with direct control over its employees; contract language and practices support no operational control	Court found record insufficient to establish operational control and declined to impose liability on that basis
Whether the jury’s factual allocation of fault (KAP 70% / Winn‑Dixie 30%) was manifestly erroneous	Thompson argued jury allocation was wrong and affirmed court of appeal’s reallocation	Winn‑Dixie argued jury allocation should be reinstated	Court reviewed Watson factors and the record and found no manifest error: jury’s 70/30 split upheld

Key Cases Cited

Dumas v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, 828 So. 2d 530 (La. 2002) (statutory interpretation principles; apply plain language when clear)
Miller v. LAMMICO, 973 So. 2d 693 (La. 2008) (purpose of comparative fault is to hold each tortfeasor liable only for his share)
Watson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 967 (La. 1985) (factors for apportioning fault)
Clement v. Frey, 666 So. 2d 607 (La. 1996) (standard of review for factual findings: manifest error/clearly wrong)