280 So.3d 1256
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- On July 17, 2017 Shirley Green slipped on a reddish liquid in a Super One Foods aisle and sustained multiple injuries; surveillance video captures the incident.
- Store manager Kenneth Cole avowed employees placed two yellow "wet floor" cones and stationed an employee near the spill before Green fell; Green swore she saw neither liquid nor cone and received no verbal warning.
- Video shows a spilled drink leaving a trail, a patron notifying staff, one cone placed several aisles away, a second cone placed adjacent to a display/pallet (possibly in the spill), and employees retrieving paper towels only after Green begins to pass through the spill. Several other patrons walked through the area before Green fell.
- Green sued Brookshire under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 alleging Brookshire had actual notice of the hazardous condition, failed to exercise reasonable care (insufficient/obscured warnings and delayed cleanup), and sought damages; Brookshire moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted Brookshire's summary-judgment motion, finding the cone(s) were placed promptly and were "very visible from all directions." Green appealed.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding genuine issues of material fact exist about adequacy and visibility of warnings and whether Brookshire exercised reasonable care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brookshire exercised reasonable care under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 (cleanup, warnings) | Brookshire failed to timely clean, violated its policies, placed an inadequate/obscured cone, and employees did not verbally warn patrons | Brookshire promptly placed cone(s), acted reasonably, and a warning cone constitutes reasonable care | Reversed summary judgment; genuine factual disputes exist about cone visibility, adequacy of warnings, and employee conduct |
| Whether Green's motion for summary judgment should be granted | No genuine issue; Brookshire liable as a matter of law | Factual disputes preclude plaintiff's entitlement to judgment | Denied — because genuine issues of material fact remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Myles v. Brookshire, 687 So. 2d 668 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1997) (warning cone obscured by store fixtures; court found warning inadequate)
- Rowell v. Hollywood Casino Shreveport, 996 So. 2d 476 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (plaintiff admitted seeing cone; cone may suffice as reasonable care)
- Sepulvado v. Travelers Ins. - Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 261 So. 3d 980 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2018) (de novo review and summary-judgment standard guidance)
- Marioneaux v. Marioneaux, 254 So. 3d 13 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2018) (summary-judgment procedural standards)
- Chanler v. Jamestown Ins. Co., 223 So. 3d 614 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2017) (court should not weigh credibility or evaluate evidence at summary judgment)