181 So. 3d 772
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Jerome Waddles sued Brookshire’s after tripping in the store’s parking‑lot crosswalk on November 29, 2011, alleging a crack/uneven concrete caused a hard fall and multiple injuries.
- He entered the store after the fall; he and his companion inspected the area afterward and later reported the incident to the store manager two days later.
- Store assistant manager Hightower testified no prior complaints or accidents in that area were reported while he worked there; the store’s surveillance did not cover the exact spot.
- Photographs and testimony described a crack/ledge but no measurements of the deviation were introduced.
- Trial court found Brookshire’s lacked actual or constructive notice and that the concrete deviation was not shown to be an unreasonable risk of harm; judgment for defendant.
- On appeal the court affirmed, applying the merchant‑liability statute La. R.S. 9:2800.6 and Louisiana precedent on when surface deviations create unreasonable risks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the concrete condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm | Waddles: crack/ledge in crosswalk was significant and in a high‑traffic crosswalk, thus unreasonably dangerous | Brookshire: evidence only shows minor, common crack; no measurement or proof of dangerous depth | Court: Plaintiff failed to prove the condition created an unreasonable risk; reasonable‑care finding affirmed |
| Whether merchant had actual or constructive notice | Waddles: manager testified condition likely existed awhile and employees/customers walked there | Brookshire: no prior reports/accidents; manager denied knowledge; no evidence condition existed long enough to impose constructive notice | Court: No actual or constructive notice shown; plaintiff failed burden under La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B)(2) |
| Whether a heightened/strict‑liability standard applies because defect was in crosswalk | Waddles: crosswalk location warrants heightened scrutiny (Johnson) | Brookshire: standard remains merchant negligence statute unless strict‑liability elements proven | Court: No different outcome—trial court considered location and size; plaintiff still failed to show unreasonable risk; no reversal |
| Damages award (if liability found) | Waddles: sought general and special damages for medical treatment and pain | Brookshire: plaintiff’s prior injuries and subsequent accidents undermine causation and extent; medical records show resolution | Court: No liability; damages issue moot; assignment lacks merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 708 So.2d 362 (La. 1998) (trial‑court factual determinations about unreasonable risk reviewed for manifest error)
- Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 85 So.3d 593 (La. 2012) (small deviations of about one to three inches may not present unreasonable risk)
- Johnson v. Brookshire Grocery Co., Inc., 754 So.2d 346 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2000) (discussion of crosswalk pothole, risk‑utility and when strict‑liability analysis may apply)
- Celestine v. Union Oil Co. of California, 652 So.2d 1299 (La. 1995) (risk‑utility balancing in determining unreasonable risk of harm)
- Boyle v. Board of Supervisors, LSU, 685 So.2d 1080 (La. 1997) (factors for reasonable care and utility considerations)