186 So. 3d 1195
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On June 22, 2009, Mary Upton fell at a Rouse’s grocery watermelon display consisting of a cardboard box on a wooden pallet; she testified her foot became lodged in pallet openings.
- Mrs. Upton also alleged watermelon juice from rotten fruit contributed to the fall; photos and depositions showed no visible liquid at the scene.
- Defendants (Rouse’s and its insurer) moved for summary judgment under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 arguing plaintiff could not prove an unreasonably dangerous condition, notice, or lack of reasonable care.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, finding the display was open and obvious and Mrs. Upton failed to show constructive or actual notice of any liquid.
- On appeal, Mrs. Upton argued the trial court misapplied the risk-utility analysis (relying on Primrose), and that she was not required to prove temporal notice if the merchant created the hazard.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, found defendants met their initial burden, determined Upton produced only speculation and no affirmative evidence of a dangerous pallet defect or prior notice of juice, and affirmed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the watermelon/pallet display presented an unreasonably dangerous condition | Upton: openings in the pallet were not visible and thus unreasonably dangerous; trial should resolve risk-utility factors | Rouse’s: display was open and obvious, customary, and not inherently dangerous | Held: display was open and obvious; no unreasonable risk as a matter of law |
| Whether watermelon juice on the floor caused the fall | Upton: juice leaked from rotten melons and caused/slipped her | Rouse’s: no evidence of juice at scene; photos and reports show dry floor | Held: no evidence of liquid at time of incident; plaintiff failed to meet burden |
| Whether merchant had actual or constructive notice of the condition | Upton: merchant created the condition, so temporal element not required | Rouse’s: no proof the store created condition or had notice; no evidence of duration | Held: plaintiff offered no positive evidence of existence/duration; constructive notice not shown |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on risk/unreasonableness | Upton: risk-utility evaluation is fact-intensive and should go to jury | Rouse’s: summary judgment appropriate where condition is open and obvious and no disputed material facts exist | Held: summary judgment proper; courts may decide unreasonableness on motion if only one reasonable conclusion exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Bufkin v. Felipe’s La., LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (adopts four‑factor risk‑utility test and discusses obviousness factor)
- White v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (requires positive evidence that condition existed long enough to give merchant constructive notice)
- Primrose v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 127 So.3d 13 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2013) (photographs showing visible warnings and unobstructed path supported summary judgment)
- Allen v. Lockwood, 156 So.3d 650 (La. 2015) (summary judgment may resolve whether a condition presents an unreasonable risk)