150 So. 3d 926
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Aug. 2, 2011, Jill Schroeder slipped and fell in a Walgreens aisle after the floor had been mopped following a soda spill; she landed on her back and head.
- A wet floor sign was placed adjacent to the wet area; employees also used a blue plastic chair and a step stool to caution off the area.
- Walgreens’ store manager (Laura Doll) later averred the floor had been mopped after a soda spill, a warning sign and chair were used, the floor appeared dry when she observed it, and there was no surveillance record showing timing of the spill/cleanup.
- Schroeder moved for partial summary judgment on liability under La. R.S. 9:2800.6; Walgreens cross‑moved for summary judgment arguing Schroeder could not prove the floor was still wet at the time of her fall and that adequate warnings were provided.
- The trial court granted Schroeder’s partial summary judgment (finding Walgreens had actual knowledge of the spill, the floor remained wet, and the warnings were inadequate) and denied Walgreens’ motion. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walgreens failed to exercise reasonable care under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 (liability) | Schroeder: employees had actual knowledge of the spill, the floor was still wet, and the warnings (chair/step stool and sign placed adjacent to but not on the wet area) were inadequate | Walgreens: plaintiff cannot prove the floor was wet at time of fall; used reasonable warnings (wet floor sign and chair) | Held: Walgreens failed to exercise reasonable care; the warnings used were inadequate and summary judgment for plaintiff on liability was proper |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the record | Schroeder: prima facie proof of elements (unreasonably slippery floor, foreseeability, notice, inadequate warning, causation) | Walgreens: disputed facts as to wetness and adequacy of warnings raise genuine issues precluding summary judgment | Held: on de novo review no genuine issue of material fact remained as to liability; partial summary judgment affirmed and defendant’s summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lofton v. Hayward, 806 So.2d 877 (La. 2002) (merchant negligence standard in slip‑and‑fall actions)
- Rowell v. Hollywood Casino Shreveport, 996 So.2d 476 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008) (proper signage can make a wet floor not unreasonably dangerous)
- Pena v. Delchamps, Inc., 960 So.2d 988 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (unreasonably slippery floor satisfies hazardous condition)
- Stockwell v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 583 So.2d 1186 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1991) (case addressing slippery floor as hazardous condition)