Trench v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery LLC
150 So. 3d 472
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Shirley Trench fell in the Winn-Dixie Gramercy, Louisiana store in the meat department area on April 23, 2011.
- Trench sued Winn-Dixie on June 13, 2011, alleging a greasy/wet/slippery condition caused her injuries.
- Winn-Dixie answered, denying liability and asserting Trench’s own negligence contributed to the fall.
- Winn-Dixie moved for summary judgment on July 10, 2013, arguing no genuine issues of material fact and no evidence of an unreasonably dangerous condition or notice.
- The movant relied on Trench’s deposition, Bartley’s deposition, affidavits from Winn-Dixie employees, a surveillance video, and photographs.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on November 21, 2013 (written reasons January 13, 2014); the court held there was no competent evidence of an unreasonably dangerous condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact on an unreasonably dangerous floor condition | Trench asserts wax buildup created danger and that notice existed. | Winn-Dixie contends no wax buildup or dangerous condition was shown and no notice was proven. | No genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether Winn-Dixie had actual or constructive notice of the condition | Evidence suggested waxing activities could have caused the condition and notice implied. | No witness saw wax, no defective condition, and no notice proven. | No genuine issue; absence of notice supported summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (plaintiff bears burden to prove all elements, including unreasonable risk and notice)
- Richardson v. Louisiana Gaming, 55 So.3d 893 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2010) (merchant owes reasonable care but not insurer of safety)
- Harrison v. Horseshoe Entertainment, 823 So.2d 1124 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2002) (store owner has affirmative duty to keep premises safe but not insurer of patrons)
- Sears v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 943 So.2d 1219 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard on evidentiary burden for consumer slip-and-fall)
- Peralta v. Perazzo, 942 So.2d 64 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2006) (lack of evidence cannot defeat summary judgment; speculative claims insufficient)
- Darr v. Marine Electronics Solutions, Inc., 96 So.3d 527 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2012) (emphasizes requirement to show facts supporting trial burden; mere speculation insufficient)