186 So. 3d 1204
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Wiltz sued Floor & Decor and its insurer after a bench in the store collapsed while she was sitting on it, alleging negligence, failure to warn (weight capacity), and alternatively res ipsa loquitur.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing they had no actual or constructive knowledge of any defect and that any defect was a hidden manufacturing/design defect.
- Defendants’ summary judgment motion was filed Nov. 24, 2014; the hearing was continued twice and set for June 15, 2015. Plaintiff took two corporate representative depositions on June 5, 2015 and sought a continuance to use those transcripts; the trial court denied the continuance.
- At summary judgment plaintiff produced no expert or inspection evidence identifying the cause of the bench’s failure, no proof of her weight at the time, and did not move to compel fuller discovery or to preserve/sequester the bench for inspection.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the appellate court affirmed, concluding Wiltz could not meet her evidentiary burden under La. C.C. art. 2317.1 and La. R.S. 9:2800.6 and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Wiltz’s motion to continue summary-judgment hearing after June 5 depositions | Wiltz argued the deposition testimony conflicted with defendants’ prior discovery and additional time was needed to pursue discovery and incorporate transcripts | Defendants argued plaintiff had ample time; the hearing had already been continued twice and Wiltz delayed scheduling depositions | Denial affirmed — court found plaintiff had adequate opportunity and unexplained delay in scheduling; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether genuine issue of material fact exists on merchant liability/negligence under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 and La. C.C. art. 2317.1 | Wiltz argued defendants failed to inspect/maintain bench, failed to warn of weight limit, and bench may have had manufacturing/design defect | Defendants showed bench was on premises two years without incident, produced purchase/assembly info and argued no actual/constructive notice of defect; any defect likely hidden/manufacturing issue | Summary judgment affirmed — Wiltz produced no evidence identifying defect, causation, her weight, or expert opinion; mere speculation insufficient to meet burden |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur or other presumptions relieve Wiltz’s need for expert/causation evidence | Wiltz asserted res ipsa loquitur because bench collapse would not happen absent negligence | Defendants contended the record showed no proof of control, notice, or causation to support res ipsa or negligence inference | Rejected — plaintiff failed to present factual support to satisfy evidentiary burden; res ipsa not established |
| Whether appellate record may be supplemented with deposition transcripts taken before the hearing | Wiltz requested supplementation with the depositions to show conflicts in discovery | Defendants opposed; appellate courts review only record on appeal | Request denied — appellate court may not consider new evidence not in record |
Key Cases Cited
- Pignona v. Farber, 128 So.3d 390 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (trial court has discretion to require further discovery before ruling on summary judgment)
- Ladart v. Harahan Living Ctr., Inc., 142 So.3d 103 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (same)
- Burns v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., 165 So.3d 147 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Prince v. K-Mart Corp., 815 So.2d 245 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (summary judgment review standards)
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La.) (summary judgment standards)
- Cao v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 119 So.3d 725 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (appellate courts may not review evidence not in the appellate record)
- Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 983 So.2d 84 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (same)
- Trench v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery LLC, 150 So.3d 472 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (summary judgment favored to secure just, speedy, inexpensive determinations)
- Dauzat v. Thompson Const. Co., Inc., 839 So.2d 319 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (elements for unreasonably dangerous thing claim under art. 2317.1)
- Monson v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 955 So.2d 758 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (knowledge element turns art. 2317.1 into negligence claim)
- Collins v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 182 So.3d 324 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (merchant liability requires proving negligence elements in addition to La. R.S. 9:2800.6)
- Patrick v. Iberia Bank, 926 So.2d 632 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (movant’s burden when it will not bear proof at trial)
- Allen v. Wal-Mart, 850 So.2d 895 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (mere speculation insufficient to meet plaintiff’s burden under La. R.S. 9:2800.6)
- Frank v. Boomtown L.L.C., 106 So.3d 227 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (same)