FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
CALCASIEU, NO. 2015-2709 HONORABLE RONALD F. WARE, DISTRICT
J. Roemershauser Jade A. Forouzanfar Blue Williams, L.L.P.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Circle K Stores, Inc.
Melissa Shaw-Brown Erin McCall Alley Baggett, McCall,
Burgess, Watson & Gaughan, L.L.C. COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Judy Clark
composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, John D.
Saunders, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.
D. SAUNDERS JUDGE
a case involving a slip and fall at a convenience store. The
merchant was granted a summary judgment under a finding of
the trial court that the patron could not prove the elements
under La.R.S. 9:2800.6 at trial. This appeal follows.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Judy Clark, was a customer at the Circle K store located at
4501 S. Highway 27 in Sulphur, Louisiana on October 20, 2014.
After exchanging a "Good Morning" with a Circle K
employee, Clark went to get a fountain drink. As she
approached the fountain drinks, she slipped, fell, and
allegedly injured herself.
to the slip and fall, Mr. Adam McCoy and Mr. Robert Cummings
entered the store as customers. Mr. Cummings filled his
44-ounce cup then proceeded to spill the drink onto the floor
accidentally. Mr. McCoy, the husband of a Circle K employee
who was not working at that time, went to grab a mop.
According to Mr. McCoy, he yelled out generally that someone
had spilled, and he thought that the employee had heard his
declaration. Video evidence indicated that 11 seconds
transpired between the spill and Clark's slip and fall.
9, 2015, Clark filed suit against Circle K Stores, Inc.
(Circle K). She alleged injuries to her neck, back, right
shoulder, right elbow, and headaches. After discovery
inclusive of depositions and exchange of the video of the
incident, Circle K filed a motion for summary judgment on the
matter. The trial court heard arguments on November 28, 2017,
and granted Circle K's motion.
from this judgment that Clark presents two assignments of
OF ERROR NUMBERS ONE AND TWO:
first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in
granting Circle K's Motion for Summary Judgment on the
issue of notice because she met her burden by offering
evidence of actual notice on the part of Circle K. In her
second assignment of error, Clark asserts that the trial
court erred in considering reasonable care as it is a factual
determination not proper for summary judgment. It was not an
issue brought forth in Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and ultimately Plaintiff/Appellant offered evidence
that Circle K failed to use reasonable care, thereby
precluding summary judgment.
courts review summary judgments de novo, under the same
criteria that govern the trial court's determination of
whether summary judgment is appropriate. Duncan v.
U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 06-363 (La. 11/29/06), 950 So.2d 544.
As such, both assignments of error require a de novo review
wherein we give no weight to the trial court's finding.
Thus, we ...