Appealed from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, In and for the Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana. Suit Number 2012-11481. Honorable Peter Garcia, Presiding.
Barry W. Bolton, Bogalusa, LA, Counsel for Plaintiff/ Appellant Peggy McCastle-Getwood.
Matthew A. Ehrlicker, Mandeville, LA, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Professional Cleaning Control.
Richard S. Vale, Eric E. Pope, Pamela F. Noya, Metairie, LA, Counsel for Intervenor/ Appellant K-Mart Corporation.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND DRAKE, JJ.
[2014 0993 La.App. 1 Cir. 1]
In this negligence action, plaintiff, Peggy McCastle-Getwood, appeals from a judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, Professional Cleaning Control (Professional), and dismissing her claims against it with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 26, 2011, Ms. McCastle, an employee of K-Mart Corporation (K-Mart) at its store in Mandeville, Louisiana, arrived for work just prior to 8:00 a.m. Ms. McCastle entered the front of the store, walked to the rear of the store to place her personal belongings in a locker in the employee break room, and then proceeded
back to the front of the store, with a cup of coffee, to clock in at the check-out register and report for work at the customer service desk. On her way to the customer service desk, Ms. McCastle slipped and fell.
On March 14, 2012, Ms. McCastle filed a petition for damages, naming Professional as a defendant and asserting that she sustained an injury when she slipped and fell as a result of a liquid substance being left on the floor by an employee of Professional, the company subcontracted to clean the floors of K-Mart's Mandeville store. K-Mart subsequently filed a petition for intervention, asserting that as Ms. McCastle's employer, it had paid medical expenses and workers' compensation benefits to Ms. McCastle as a result of the accident and that, under the provisions of the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act, it is entitled to recover any and all workers' compensation and medical benefits it has paid to Ms. McCastle by preference and priority out of the proceeds of any judgment.
[2014 0993 La.App. 1 Cir. 2] Thereafter, on September 18, 2013, Professional filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that because Ms. McCastle testified in her deposition that she did not see how the alleged liquid substance got on the floor and did not know how long the alleged substance was on the floor before she slipped, she cannot prove that Professional owed any duty to her under these facts nor that if any duty was owed, that Professional breached that duty. As such, Professional asserted that Ms. McCastle and K-Mart cannot carry their burden of proof at trial ...