Robert Harris v. Tractor Supply Company
377 So.3d 726
La. Ct. App.2023Background
- On Jan. 11, 2020, Robert Harris was struck in the head by a saddle-rack box that fell from a top shelf (≈7 ft high) while he touched it to view the price; the box weighed ~42.9 lbs.
- Harris says the box protruded over the shelf edge, no "ask for assistance" sign was on that aisle, and he sought help but found none; he reported the injury to Tractor Supply about two weeks later.
- Tractor Supply maintained items are displayed per corporate planogram, employees inspect aisles, and store signage generally advised customers to request assistance; company evidence asserted the box's fall occurred when Harris touched it.
- Conflicting evidence: manager testimony and an expert affidavit submitted by Harris suggested the box’s placement violated store policy and created an inevitable/unsafe condition.
- Tractor Supply moved for summary judgment arguing Harris admitted he touched the box and cannot show merchant negligence caused the fall; the trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed Harris’s claims.
- The First Circuit reversed and remanded, finding factual disputes about whether Tractor Supply’s placement of the heavy box created an unreasonably dangerous condition and whether Harris was the sole cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist on merchant negligence and causation in a falling-merchandise case | Harris: placement of a 42.9-lb box on a 7-ft top shelf that protruded created an unreasonably dangerous condition; his touching did not establish sole causation | Tractor Supply: undisputed that box did not fall until Harris touched it, so Harris cannot prove merchant negligence caused the fall | Reversed: genuine disputes exist about whether the merchant’s placement was a cause and whether Harris was sole cause; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether Harris produced sufficient evidence after defendant met initial summary-judgment burden | Harris: deposition, manager testimony, and expert affidavit raise factual disputes on unsafe placement and foreseeability | Tractor Supply: initial proof showed absence of factual support for plaintiff’s claim (box fell when plaintiff touched it) | Held for Harris: his evidence reasonably could lead factfinder to conclude merchant was (in part) a cause; he met his burden to create a genuine issue |
| Whether the trial court erred procedurally by not ruling on defendant’s peremptory exception (no cause of action) before the summary-judgment hearing | Harris: implicitly opposed skipping the exception? (primary focus on merits) | Tractor Supply: filed exception in its answer but did not have it heard before summary-judgment ruling | Court noted the exception was not ruled on but, because the same party filed both the exception and the summary-judgment motion and obtained summary judgment, the exception is effectively waived; court proceeded to address the summary-judgment merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 774 So.2d 84 (La. 2000) (sets three-prong test for falling-merchandise claims)
- Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 359 So.3d 467 (La. 2023) (describes summary-judgment standard and what constitutes a genuine issue)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (summary judgment: doubts resolved against granting; no credibility determinations)
- Martin v. Thomas, 346 So.3d 238 (La. 2022) (explains Louisiana's pure comparative-fault allocation among all persons)
- Stepherson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 785 So.2d 950 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2001) (merchant duty includes reasonable shelving anticipating customer removal)