BRENDA SOAPE v. WALMART INC
CASE NO. 6:24-CV-00055
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION
April 14, 2025
JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS; MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO
Presently before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 16] filed by Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart“). Plaintiff has filed an Opposition to the Motion. While Plaintiff titles the pleading an Opposition to the Motion, the pleading essentially concluded that if the Court follows existing law, “it should grant defendant‘s motion.”1 As the Court agrees that the law favors Walmart, the Court will grant the Motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
On December 27, 2022, the plaintiff, Brenda Soape, went to the Creswell Lane Wal-Mart location in Opelousas, Louisiana with her husband.2 After they had finished shopping and were waiting in line to check out their groceries, Plaintiff realized that they had forgotten to grab a loaf of bread.3 While Plaintiff‘s husband remained in line, Plaintiff walked over to the bread aisle to grab a loaf of bread.4 As she was walking down the bread aisle, she slipped.5
She speculates that the floors must have been waxed at some time prior to her fall and that the waxing must have caused her to slip and fall because in April 2023, almost four months after her fall, an employee told Plaintiff that the floors of the store had been waxed around Christmastime.13 However, Plaintiff does not know whether the floor was actually waxed, and, if it was, whether the allegedly waxed floor was the cause of her fall.14 Plaintiff testified that she cannot say how any hazardous condition ended up on the floor, nor can she describe its color, shape, or the length of time it was present, which confirms her inability to prove that the floor of
Co-Manager and Store Lead, Travis Riggs, stated in his affidavit that there was nothing present on the floor in the area where Plaintiff fell.16 Mr. Riggs further stated that he was specifically in charge of scheduling the waxing crew at the time of Plaintiff‘s fall in 2022.17 Due to the high customer traffic during the holiday season, he did not schedule anyone to wax the floor right before the Thanksgiving holidays, and the floors were not waxed anytime from November 1, 2022 until after January 1, 2023.18 Accordingly, the floors had last been waxed over a month before Plaintiff‘s fall.19
Lawrence Reed, the employee Plaintiff claimed told her four months after her accident in April 2023 they waxed the floor during Christmastime, testified that in his 22 years at Walmart, he had never waxed the floors.20 Rather, Plaintiff saw Mr. Reed using a scrubber machine which shoots out water to clean the floor and thought he was waxing the floor four months after her accident.21 In truth in fact, Mr. Reed is a maintenance employee.22 The scrubber does not wax the floor, the Scrubber only shoots out water.23 No wax is ever put in the scrubber.24 Mr. Reed testified he would have no knowledge of when the floors had been waxed and stated that the store lead,
II.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense-or the part of each claim or defense-on which summary judgment is sought.”27 “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”28 “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”29 As summarized by the Fifth Circuit:
When seeking summary judgment, the movant bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of an issue of material fact with respect to those issues on which the movant bears the burden of proof at trial. However, where the nonmovant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant may merely point to an absence of evidence, thus shifting to the non-movant the burden of demonstrating by competent summary judgment proof that there is an issue of material fact warranting trial.30
When reviewing evidence in connection with a motion for summary judgment, “the court must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe, and should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmoving party as well as that evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached.”31 “Credibility determinations are not part of the summary judgment analysis.”32 Mere conclusory allegations are
III.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiffs’ Claims against Walmart.
The Louisiana Merchant Liability Act supplies the relevant standard of care in the present case:
A. A merchant owes a duty to persons who use his premises to exercise reasonable care to keep his aisles, passageways, and floors in a reasonably safe condition. This duty includes a reasonable effort to keep the premises free of any hazardous conditions which reasonably might give rise to damage.
B. In a negligence claim brought against a merchant by a person lawfully on the merchant‘s premises for damages as a result of an injury, death, or loss sustained because of a fall due to a condition existing in or on a merchant‘s premises, the claimant shall have the burden of proving, in addition to all other elements of his cause of action, all of the following:
(1) The condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the claimant and that risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
(2) The merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which caused the damage, prior to the occurrence.
(3) The merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. In determining reasonable care, the absence of a written or verbal uniform cleanup or safety procedure is insufficient, alone, to prove failure to exercise reasonable care.35
Louisiana courts have consistently held that a shiny appearance of a floor is insufficient to establish a hazardous condition.39 Plaintiff has provided no evidence whatsoever of the existence of any hazardous condition on the floor where she fell. Her speculation that the floor must have been slippery because it had been waxed is not only speculation which is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact but has been rebutted by the actual evidence in the record. The Court finds that there is no evidence in the record to establish a hazardous condition.
Even if Plaintiff could establish the presence of a hazardous condition, her case would also fail because she cannot establish that Walmart either created or had actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition as required under the Louisiana Merchant Liability Act.
The claimant has proven that the condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care. The presence of an employee of the merchant in the vicinity in which the condition exists does not, alone, constitute constructive notice, unless it is shown that the employee knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the condition.41
There is no evidence in the record to indicate that Walmart created any hazardous condition nor that they were aware of any such condition. Finally, as Plaintiff cannot establish the presence of any hazardous condition, she cannot establish that such condition existed for a period of time that Walmart would have discovered it if they had exercised reasonable care.
Accordingly, and as acknowledged by Plaintiff in her response to Walmart‘s Motion, Plaintiff cannot establish the requisite elements to establish her case. As such, Walmart‘s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff‘s claims are DISMISSED.
THUS DONE in Chambers on this 14th day of April, 2025.
ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE