Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thibodeaux v. Dolgencorp, LLC

United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana

April 17, 2015

SHERRY THIBODEAUX
v.
DOLGENCORP, LLC

RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 25) filed by Defendant, Dolgencorp, LLC (Defendant) on March 5, 2015.[1] Plaintiff, Sherry Thibodeaux (Plaintiff), filed an Opposition in response to Defendant’s Motion. (R. Doc. 27). Following Plaintiff’s Opposition, Defendant obtained leave to file a Reply Memorandum (R. Doc. 28) addressing certain arguments made in the Opposition. Considering the materials cited by the parties and the applicable law, the Court finds Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgment should be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 16, 2013, Plaintiff was shopping in Defendant’s store located in Gonzales, Louisiana. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 1). Plaintiff claims that she “was walking along the aisle with the artificial flowers when she reached in for an item on the shelf and was bitten by a Black Widow/Brown Recluse spider” on her left hand. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 1). During her deposition, Plaintiff explained that she immediately pulled her hand back after feeling the “sting.” (Pl. Dep., R. Doc. 25-3 at 9). However, Plaintiff also conceded that she did not see any spiders or other insects while shopping, and that she initially thought she was stung by a spider, wasp or snake. (Pl. Dep., R. Doc. 25-3 at 5-6).

As a result of the alleged spider bite, Plaintiff claims that she sustained “[n]erve injury to [her] left hand, wrist, arm and left side;” and that “she can no longer use her left hand to its fullest. It constantly is swelling by early afternoon which makes her unable to use it.” (Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Interrog. Nos. 4 and 6, R. Doc. 12-11 at 4-5).[2] Additionally, Plaintiff claims she “has been to see her regular doctor, Dr. Jerry M. Poche. Dr. Poche referred [Plaintiff] to Dr. Scott G. Petrie (orthopedist) . . . to help determine the severity of the damage to her arm.” (R. Doc. 1-2 at 1). Plaintiff has likewise sought treatment from several other physicians - Dr. Randall Poche (primary care), Dr. Chad Loup (orthopedic surgeon), and Dr. Michael Robichaux (orthopedic surgeon). (R. Doc. 25-3 at 3).

On September 4, 2013, Plaintiff sued Defendant in state court, alleging that her “injuries were caused solely and proximately through the negligence and fault” of Defendant in failing to protect her from the harm suffered. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 2). Plaintiff seeks damages for “permanent” injury to her “left arm and beyond, ” physical pain and suffering, disfigurement, mental anguish, emotional distress, lost enjoyment of life, medical expenses, inconvenience, distress, and embarrassment. (R. Doc. 1-2 at 2).

Defendant now moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. (R. Doc. 25). According to Defendant, Plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment because she is unable to prove (1) that she was bitten by a spider, or (2) that a spider bite was the cause-in-fact of her alleged injuries. (R. Doc. 25-1 at 6-10).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party, “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, ” can show “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and it is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), (c). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Washburn v. Harvey, 504 F.3d 505, 508 (5th Cir. 2007). However, when the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the party seeking summary judgment must only show that an essential element of the non-movant’s claim cannot be established. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (Summary judgment is appropriate if the non-movant “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.”). The Court must construe all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant and cannot weigh evidence or evaluate credibility. Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 2008).

III. APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE LAW

Because this is a diversity action, Louisiana substantive law applies. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Stephens v. Witco Corp., 198 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 1999). Here, Plaintiff’s negligence action may be analyzed under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315 (general law of negligence)[3] or under Louisiana Civil Code article 2317.1 (premise liability).[4] Under either analysis, Plaintiff must demonstrate that Defendant’s negligence was a cause-in-fact of her injuries - an element essential to her claim. Sharplin v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co., 2008 WL 2993651, at *3 (M.D. La. Aug. 4, 2008) (noting that ‘cause-in-fact’ is an essential element of claims brought under articles 2315, 2317 and 2317.1). Plaintiff has the “burden of proving negligence and causation by a preponderance of the evidence, and proof is sufficient . . . when the entirety of the evidence . . . establishes that the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litigation, 2013 WL 1562765, at *11 (E.D. La. April 12, 2013); see also Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 650 So.2d 757, 759 (La. 1995).

A. Cause-in-Fact under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315

Louisiana courts have adopted a duty-risk analysis in determining whether to impose liability under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315. For liability to attach, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant had a duty to conform its conduct to a specific standard of care (duty); (2) it failed to conform its conduct to the appropriate standard of care (breach of duty); (3) the defendant’s substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiffs injuries (cause-in-fact); (4) its substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (scope of protection); and (5) actual damages (damage). Pinsonneault v. Merchs. & Farmers Bank & Trust Co., 816 So.2d 270, 275-76 (La. 2002).

Under the facts of this case, the cause-in-fact element requires Plaintiff to prove that Defendant’s alleged failure to keep hazardous spiders out of its store was a cause-in-fact of her claimed injuries. Therefore, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) not only that Defendant was negligent, but also (2) that Defendant’s negligence was a cause-in-fact of Plaintiff being bitten by a spider, which in turn caused her alleged “nerve injury” to the left side of her body, with associated swelling and pain. (R. Doc. 12-11 at 4-5); (R. Doc. 25-3 at 2).

B. Cause-in-Fact under Louisiana Civil Code article 2317.1

Like article 2315, liability is established under Louisiana Civil Code article 2317.1 on a showing of negligence. See Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 786 So.2d 682, 689 n.9 (La. 2001). A finding of negligence under article 2317.1 requires a plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant had custody of the thing causing the plaintiff’s injuries; (2) the thing was defective because of a condition creating an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and failed to take corrective measures within a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.