United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
MEMORANDUM RULING
PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Currently
pending is the motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 19),
which was filed by the defendant, Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC.
The motion is opposed, and oral argument was held on January
24, 2017. Considering the evidence, the law, and the
arguments of the parties, and for the reasons fully explained
below, this Court grants the motion and dismisses the
plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
Background
Beatrice
Derousselle, the plaintiff in this lawsuit, alleged that she
was injured in a slip-and-fall in the Opelousas Wal-Mart
store. She alleged that she entered the store about 7:30 on
the morning of Saturday, September 26, 2015 and proceeded to
the cold cuts section of the store's meat department to
buy some bacon. As she walked down the aisle, she allegedly
fell to the ground, injuring her left hip. When the
store's assistant manager Craigory Sam investigated the
incident, he found a green grape with skid marks from the
plaintiff's shoe. The plaintiff alleged that her stepping
on the grape caused her fall and the resulting injuries.
The
plaintiff was deposed. Mr. Sam and three additional Wal-Mart
employees were also deposed. None of them witnessed the
incident, and none of them knows where the grape came from or
how long it was on the floor before the accident.
Wal-Mart
produced surveillance video that shows the aisle where the
accident happened, starting at 6:30 that morning. Although
several people - Wal-Mart employees and customers - used the
aisle in the hour before the accident, the grape cannot be
seen on the video, and no one else slipped or fell. In fact,
the plaintiff walked down the aisle in a direction away from
the camera, then turned around and walked back toward the
camera, covering the same part of the aisle for the second
time just before she fell.
The
plaintiff claims that Wal-Mart is liable for her fall and the
resulting injuries, while Wal-Mart argues that the plaintiff
has not proven that it is liable.
Analysis
A.
The Summary Judgment Standard
Under
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if proof of
its existence or nonexistence might affect the outcome of the
lawsuit under the applicable governing law.[1] A genuine issue
of material fact exists if a reasonable jury could render a
verdict for the nonmoving party.[2]
The
party seeking summary judgment has the initial responsibility
of informing the court of the basis for its motion and
identifying those parts of the record that demonstrate the
absence of genuine issues of material fact.[3] If the moving
party carries its initial burden, the burden shifts to the
nonmoving party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine
issue of a material fact.[4] All facts and inferences are construed
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.[5]
If the
dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party will
bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may
satisfy its burden by pointing out that there is insufficient
proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving
party's claim.[6] The motion should be granted if the
nonmoving party cannot produce evidence to support an
essential element of its claim.[7]
When
both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts,
a court is bound to draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the nonmoving party.[8] The court cannot make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence, and the nonmovant
cannot meet his burden with unsubstantiated assertions,
conclusory allegations, or a scintilla of
evidence.[9] “When all of the summary judgment
evidence presented by both parties could not lead a rational
trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no
genuine issue for trial and summary judgment is
proper.”[10]
Interpretations
of statutory provisions that are dispositive and raise only
questions of law, there being no contest as to the operative
facts, are particularly appropriate for summary
judgment.[11]
B.
The Applicable Statute
In a
diversity case such as this one, we apply state substantive
law, here Louisiana law.[12] Therefore, Wal-Mart's liability
for the plaintiff's accident and injury is governed by
the Louisiana Merchant Liability Act, La. R.S. 9:2800.6,
which reads as follows in its entirety:
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.
C. Definitions:
(1) “Constructive notice” means 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.
(2) “Merchant” means one whose business is to
sell goods, foods, wares, or merchandise at a fixed place of
business. For purposes of this Section, a merchant includes
an innkeeper with respect to those areas or aspects of the
premises which are similar to those of a merchant, including
but not limited to shops, restaurants, and lobby areas of or
within the hotel, motel, or inn.
D. Nothing herein shall affect any liability which a merchant
may have under Civil Code Arts. 660, 667, 669, 2317, 2322, or
2695.
The
statute requires a plaintiff to prove three things: (1) there
was a condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm,
(2) the merchant either created the condition or had actual
or constructive notice of the condition, and (3) the merchant
failed to exercise reasonable care. If the plaintiff fails to
prove any one of those three elements, the merchant is not
liable. The Louisiana Supreme Court has found this statute to
be clear and unambiguous.[13]
C.
The Plaintiff Failed to Prove that Wal-Mart is
Liable
In this
case, it is alleged that a grape, which was found after the
accident and presumably caused the plaintiff's fall, was
a condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm. It
is undisputed that a grape with skid marks on it was found by
Wal-Mart's manager after the plaintiff's fall.
Therefore, there is no dispute ...