255 So. 3d 1123
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Sybil Schroeder slipped and fell in the women’s restroom of Kings Travel Plaza (PGS Diner) on December 27, 2014, alleging injuries from a wet, soapy floor.
- Plaintiff admitted at deposition she observed two "wet floor" signs before entering the restroom; her affidavit emphasized the floor was excessively wet and her clothes remained soaking afterward.
- Defendants (Kings Travel Plaza and its insurer) moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff cannot prove the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care because warning signs were present and visible.
- Trial court denied summary judgment; defendants sought supervisory review and this appellate court granted the writ and invited further briefing (none filed).
- Applying La. R.S. 9:2800.6 and summary-judgment standards, the court considered whether the presence of visible warning signs precluded a finding that the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court, granted summary judgment for defendants, and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care under La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B)(3) | Schroeder: excessive water and soap made the floor unreasonably dangerous and signage did not cure the hazard | Kings Travel Plaza: visible wet-floor signs were deployed and alert patrons, so merchant exercised reasonable care | Court: Signs were present and seen by plaintiff; no genuine issue that merchant exercised reasonable care — summary judgment for defendants granted |
| Whether a mopped/wet floor always creates an unreasonable risk of harm | Schroeder: amount of water/soap here was extreme and saturated clothing, so risk existed despite signs | Defendants: mopping during business hours with proper signage is not negligence per se; signage cures risk from normal mopping | Court: Jurisprudence does not treat mopped floors as per se unreasonable; facts show ordinary mopping with visible warnings — no issue for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Melancon v. Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken, 59 So.3d 513 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2011) (video evidence of visible wet-floor signs supported summary judgment for merchant)
- Rowell v. Hollywood Casino Shreveport, 996 So.2d 476 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (mopped floors with appropriate signage do not necessarily create unreasonable risk)
- Lee v. Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc., 960 So.2d 1042 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (warning signs can negate merchant liability for recently mopped floors)
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (clarifying claimant must prove each element of La. R.S. 9:2800.6)
- Harrison v. Horseshoe Entm't, 823 So.2d 1124 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2002) (mopped floors not per se unreasonable; visibility of warnings is critical)
- Carter v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 690 So.2d 933 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1997) (warning signs were not readily visible where plaintiff fell—distinguishing facts)
- Knower v. Peranio, 678 So.2d 574 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1996) (case addressing merchant liability for floor conditions)
- Sampson v. Lemoine, 657 So.2d 181 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1995) (jury found merchant exercised reasonable care in mopping operations)
- Larson v. XYZ Ins. Co., 226 So.3d 412 (La. 2017) (summary judgment review is de novo)