William Boyd Matlock v. Brookshire Grocery Company, 285 So.3d 76

On Sept. 3, 2016 William Boyd Matlock slipped in the produce section of a Super 1 (Brookshire Grocery) in Monroe on a milky/clear puddle of watermelon juice and was injured; he later sued Brookshire (petition filed Nov. 10, 2016).
Brookshire moved for summary judgment, arguing Matlock could not prove the store created the condition or had actual/constructive notice; submitted incident report, photos, employee affidavits, and testimony that employees did not see or place the liquid.
Surveillance video (in the record after supplementation of Baker’s deposition) showed customers and employees passing the spot in the minutes before the fall, and employees locating a deflated/leaky watermelon after the fall.
Baker (assistant manager) testified watermelons were displayed in cardboard bins on pallets, that leaking occasionally occurs, that employees routinely monitor the produce area, and that warning cones are routinely present.
Matlock argued Brookshire’s procedures created a recurrent leakage risk and that circumstantial evidence (size/condition of watermelon and puddle) supported constructive notice because the puddle formed over time.
The trial court granted Brookshire’s summary judgment (no reasons); appellate court affirmed, holding Matlock failed to produce factual support that Brookshire created or had actual/constructive notice of the puddle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did merchant "create" the hazardous puddle?	Matlock: Brookshire’s watermelon procurement/storage/display practices made leakage predictable and thus created the hazardous condition.	Brookshire: No evidence employees acted to create the puddle or that procedures caused this specific puddle.	Held: No; plaintiff produced only speculation, no factual link showing creation by merchant.
Did merchant have actual or constructive notice of the puddle?	Matlock: Circumstantial evidence (large puddle, deflated watermelon) permits inference it leaked over time and should have been discovered.	Brookshire: Employee testimony, photos showing no tracks, and video of people crossing minutes before the fall undermine any showing the condition existed long enough to have been discovered.	Held: No; claimant failed to make a positive showing the condition existed for some period before the fall—summary judgment affirmed.

Peironnet v. Matador Res. Co., 144 So. 3d 791 (La. 2013) (summary-judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
Hines v. Garrett, 876 So. 2d 764 (La. 2004) (view evidence and inferences in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So. 2d 1081 (La. 1997) (constructive notice requires proof condition existed for some time before the fall)
Ross v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., 734 So. 2d 910 (La. App. 1999) (failure-to-exercise-care argument cannot substitute for proof merchant created condition)
Gregory v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 35 So. 3d 458 (La. App. 2010) (plaintiff must prove all statutory elements under La. R.S. 9:2800.6)