203 So. 3d 1075
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Sept. 21, 2012, Cheryl Tate slipped and fell after taking 2–3 steps inside an Outback Steakhouse in Baton Rouge on an unknown clear liquid; she did not see the liquid before or after the fall.
- Tate filed a premises-liability claim under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 against Outback asserting the liquid created an unreasonable, foreseeable risk and that Outback had notice.
- Outback moved for summary judgment, arguing Tate could not show actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to the fall.
- At deposition Tate testified she did not see anyone spill anything, did not see the substance before falling, and did not know how long it had been on the floor; only evidence of wetness was damp clothing after the fall.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Outback; Tate appealed arguing a factual dispute existed as to how long the liquid had been on the floor.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and examined whether Tate could meet her statutory burden to prove constructive notice (temporal element) under La. R.S. 9:2800.6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Outback had constructive notice of the liquid on the floor | Tate: wet substance must have been present before entry; time on floor is disputed so summary judgment improper | Outback: no evidence the condition existed long enough to be discovered by reasonable care | Held: No constructive notice; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether presence of an employee near the hazard alone establishes notice | Tate: hostess was in vicinity, implying notice | Outback: mere presence does not equal knowledge | Held: Proximity alone insufficient; statute requires proof employee knew or should have known |
| Whether claimant may rely on inference of notice without temporal evidence | Tate: wet condition on floor permits inference | Outback: statute requires positive evidence of existence for some period | Held: Inference not allowed; claimant must show condition existed long enough to be discovered |
| Whether summary judgment standard permits credibility evaluation here | Tate: factual dispute prevents judgment | Outback: absence of evidentiary support for essential element meets moving party’s burden | Held: Court may not weigh credibility; but nonmoving party must produce evidence—Tate failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (constructive notice requires proof the condition existed long enough to be discovered)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (summary judgment review prohibits credibility determinations or weighing evidence)
- Coleman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 721 So.2d 1068 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1998) (no constructive notice where liquid existed only for a brief moment)
- Sheffie v. Wal-Mart Louisiana LLC, 134 So.3d 80 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2014) (surveillance showing employees passing hazard can create genuine issue on constructive notice)