Soape v. Walmart Inc
6:24-cv-00055
W.D. La.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Brenda Soape, slipped and fell while shopping at a Walmart in Opelousas, Louisiana on December 27, 2022.
- She alleges the bread aisle floor was "excessively slick" but did not observe any hazardous condition or substance before or after the fall.
- Plaintiff speculated the slipperiness was due to waxing, based on a statement from an employee months after her fall, but provided no direct evidence.
- Walmart provided affidavits and testimony showing floors were not waxed during the relevant timeframe and that routine cleaning did not involve waxing.
- Plaintiff could not describe or prove the existence, nature, or duration of any hazardous condition, nor that Walmart had notice of the same.
- The case reached the court on Walmart's motion for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of Hazardous Condition | Floor was "slick," possibly due to waxing | No evidence of any hazardous condition; waxing not shown | No hazardous condition established |
| Causation | Slip was caused by waxed floor | No evidence tying waxing or any condition to fall | Causation not established |
| Walmart's Notice | Walmart should have known about floor condition | No actual or constructive notice of a hazard | No notice shown |
| Burden of Proof | Plaintiff met burden by testifying about slipperiness | Burden unmet; speculation and lack of evidence | Burden not met; summary judgment for Walmart |
Key Cases Cited
- Quality Infusion Care, Inc. v. Health Care Service Corp., 628 F.3d 725 (5th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment appropriate where no genuine dispute of material fact exists)
- Neal v. Players Lake Charles, LLC., 787 So. 2d 1213 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2001) (shiny floor insufficient to prove hazard)
- Weber v. Ray Brandt Nissan, Inc., 880 So. 2d 999 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2004) (waxed floor claims require more than speculation)
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (plaintiff must prove existence of hazard, notice, and failure of reasonable care in slip-and-fall claims)
- Kennedy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 733 So.2d 1188 (La. 1999) (speculation doesn’t satisfy statutory burdens in merchant slip-and-fall cases)
- Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 764 So.2d 37 (La. 2000) (constructive notice requires proof of hazard’s duration)