178 So. 3d 603
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Rebecca Pouncy sued Winn‑Dixie after a March 20, 2013 slip‑and‑fall at a Metairie store, alleging she slipped on standing water and that Winn‑Dixie failed to place mats or warn customers.
- Winn‑Dixie answered and moved for summary judgment after Pouncy’s deposition, arguing she could not prove an unreasonably dangerous condition or actual/constructive notice under La. R.S. 9:2800.6.
- In deposition Pouncy testified she did not see any substance on the floor, had “no idea” what caused her fall, could not say how long any condition had existed, but said her clothes felt damp and that a green “wet floor” sign was routinely stored near the entrance.
- The trial court granted Winn‑Dixie’s motion for summary judgment and denied Pouncy’s motion to compel more complete discovery; Pouncy’s motion for reconsideration was later denied and she appealed.
- The appellate court conducted de novo review and affirmed, concluding Pouncy failed to produce factual support on essential elements (existence of a hazardous condition and constructive notice) and was not prejudiced by the court’s procedural handling of discovery and the summary‑judgment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff established existence of an unreasonably dangerous condition (La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B)(1)) | Pouncy: damp clothes and circumstantial evidence create a genuine issue that the floor was wet/slippery | Winn‑Dixie: Pouncy testified she did not see any substance and cannot identify cause or condition | Held: No genuine issue; damp clothing alone insufficient to prove hazardous condition |
| Whether plaintiff established actual or constructive notice (La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B)(2)) | Pouncy: placement of a wet‑floor sign at the entrance suggests constructive notice of recurring water | Winn‑Dixie: Pouncy had no evidence how any substance got there, how long it existed, or that employees knew of it | Held: No factual support for constructive notice; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether trial court erred by not allowing more discovery/continuing hearing | Pouncy: needed discovery (floor material, maintenance, expert inspection) to oppose summary judgment | Winn‑Dixie: had answered discovery; summary judgment may be timely raised after plaintiff’s deposition | Held: No error; Winn‑Dixie had responded, Pouncy had opportunity, and delay not required absent probable injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Parry, 61 So.3d 1 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment procedure favored)
- White v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (constructive notice requires evidence the condition existed long enough to place merchant on notice)
- Alonzo v. Safari Car Wash, Inc., 75 So.3d 509 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2011) (damp clothing and speculation insufficient to establish hazardous condition)
- Sibert v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., 136 So.3d 283 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 2014) (trial court discretion to allow further discovery before ruling on summary judgment)