127 So. 3d 13
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- On Sept. 8, 2009, 73-year-old Sandra Primrose tripped over a corner of a watermelon display at a Wal‑Mart in Minden, Louisiana and suffered serious injuries.
- Primrose sued Wal‑Mart for negligence under the Louisiana Merchant Liability Statute (La. R.S. 9:2800.6) on Sept. 8, 2010.
- Wal‑Mart moved for summary judgment arguing the display’s protruding corners and posted "Watch Your Step" warnings made the hazard open and obvious.
- Store manager affidavit and photographs showed warning signs on each corner, long-standing use of the display (≥4 years), and no prior incidents.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the hazard open and obvious and not unreasonably dangerous; Primrose appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because negligence is a factual question | Primrose: negligence and open‑obvious issues raise factual disputes for trial | Wal‑Mart: evidence shows no genuine issue; hazard was open and obvious as a matter of law | Court: summary judgment proper; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether the protruding corner was open and obvious | Primrose: corner/warnings might not have been visible to her while carrying a watermelon; created a trap | Wal‑Mart: corners were visibly marked with warnings; photos/affidavit show visibility | Court: corner and warnings were open and obvious; no duty to protect against such hazard |
| Whether Wal‑Mart had notice or failed to exercise reasonable care (La. R.S. 9:2800.6 elements) | Primrose: layout, nearby trash can, and display design created narrow path and obscured view; constructive notice exists | Wal‑Mart: no prior incidents, longstanding use, no proof condition existed long enough for notice | Court: Primrose failed to prove constructive/actual notice or unreasonable risk; elements unmet |
| Whether the display was unreasonably dangerous under the four‑factor test | Primrose: utility outweighed by danger given placement and shape; warnings insufficient | Wal‑Mart: display had social/utility value, low likelihood of harm, warnings adequate, modification potentially costly | Court: applying the four factors, display not unreasonably dangerous; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricks v. City of Monroe, 26 So.3d 858 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; inferences drawn for non‑movant)
- King v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 9 So.3d 780 (La. 2009) (definition of material and genuine issues for summary judgment)
- Reed v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 708 So.2d 362 (La. 1998) (four‑factor test for whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous)
- Caserta v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 90 So.3d 1042 (La. 2012) (merchant generally no duty to protect against open and obvious hazards)
- White v. Wal‑Mart Stores, 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (plaintiff must show condition existed long enough to give merchant notice)