Williamson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
130 So. 3d 478
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Williamsons appeal trial court's grant of Wal-Mart's summary judgment in slip-and-fall case
- Fall occurred May 28, 2010 in Wal-Mart restroom; substance smelled like pine oil; Mrs. Williamson did not see liquid before or know duration of the hazard
- Wal-Mart employee and management testified about inspections and conditions; some testimony suggested no preexisting notice or knowledge
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Wal-Mart on Jan 14, 2013, finding lack of actual or constructive knowledge and duration evidence
- Court holds genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Wal-Mart's control, knowledge, and preventive inspections, reversing and remanding
- Statutory framework La. R.S. 9:2800.6 governs merchant slip-and-fall liability; court analyzes res ipsa loquitur applicability and duty of care
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur | Williamsons rely on res ipsa to infer negligence | Wal-Mart argues statute governing slip-and-fall claims controls | Res ipsa loquitur not applicable; statute controls |
| La. R.S. 9:2800.6 burden of proof | Williamsons contend res ipsa could fill missing proof under statute | Wal-Mart asserts elements of 9:2800.6 must be proven by plaintiff | 9:2800.6 governs; plaintiff must prove all elements; issues remain fact-based |
| Constructive/actual notice and control | Williamsons argue Wal-Mart either created or knew of the hazard or failed to inspect | Wal-Mart claims no notice and no breach shown | Genuine factual disputes exist about notice, control, and inspections; not dispositive on summary judgment |
| Reasonableness of Wal-Mart's inspections | Evidence shows possible lack of regular inspection of restrooms | Wal-Mart management claims standard procedures; some testimony disputes frequency | Material facts remain about reasonableness of inspections; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Evidence of causation and duration | Positive evidence of the condition existed for a period aiding notice | Pre-incident inspections reportedly did not reveal the hazard | Record contains conflicting evidence; can't resolve causation/date duration at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355 (La.1992) (three-factor test for res ipsa loquitur)
- Harper v. Advantage Gaming Co., 880 So.2d 948 (La.App.2d Cir. 2004) (res ipsa considerations in circumstantial evidence)
- Martinez v. Schumpert Medical Center, 655 So.2d 649 (La.App.2d Cir. 1995) (res ipsa framework in medical facility cases)
- Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hosp., 540 So.2d 312 (La.1989) (shifts burden with inference of negligence under res ipsa)
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, 699 So.2d 1081 (La.1997) (proof of duration of hazardous condition for notice)
- Harrison v. Horseshoe Entertainment, 823 So.2d 1124 (La.App.2d Cir. 2002) (establishing hazards and merchant duties under 9:2800.6)
- Jones v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 847 So.2d 43 (La.App.2d Cir. 2003) (reasonableness of merchant care and warning duties)
- Milton v. E & M Oil Co., 47 So.3d 1091 (La.App.2d Cir. 2010) (defect mere presence not unreasonably dangerous per se)
- Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 616 So.2d 817 (La.App.2d Cir. 1993) (court's treatment of inspection duties in retail contexts)
- Dowdy v. City of Monroe, 78 So.3d 791 (La.App.2d Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standards and inferences generally)