Court Gives Guidance on Elements of a Slip and Fall: You’ve Got to Keep them Separated

The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment Keogh Cox obtained in Clark v. Premier Automotive Management, LLC, finding the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence failed to establish an unreasonable risk of harm caused her to fall.

In Clark, the plaintiff claimed she was injured after slipped and fell in a puddle of water in a service garage. Keogh Cox attorneys Chad A. Sullivan and Cole C. Frazier filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendants in response. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient proof to establish that standing water or a hazardous condition caused her fall. Specifically, the defendants maintained that the plaintiff could not establish (1) an unreasonable risk of harm existed within the garage or (2) the puddle of water existed on the garage floor for an extended period of time.

The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that it rained earlier in the day, that she was walking quickly before she fell, and that she was wearing flip flops. The plaintiff also testified she assumed she fell in a puddle of water because her back was damp after her fall. She described the amount of water under her shoes as the size of a “softball.”

The defendants also attached the affidavits of two employees who worked at the service garage on the day of the incident. The affidavits acknowledged wet conditions on the day of the incident but denied any prior complaints or accidents in the area. The affidavits also established that the plaintiff fell in an uncovered area of the garage that slopes downward. Thus, there was no possibility for standing water or puddles to collect.

Based upon this evidence, the appellate court found that the defendants satisfied their burden of proof to show there was no unreasonable risk of harm. The court stated the burden then shifted to the plaintiff to establish that there was an unreasonable risk of harm and thus establishing a genuine issue of material fact. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden because all her arguments were based upon conclusory allegations and unsupported speculation. To support her claims, the plaintiff could only cite to the “possibility” of the existence of standing water or puddles. As such, the plaintiff only speculated whether a hazardous substance or an unreasonable risk of harm caused her fall. Such speculation was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.

In so holding, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims that Keogh Cox obtained through summary judgment.

References:

Clark v. Premier Auto. Mgmt., LLC, 2024-0397 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/10/25), --- So.3d ---, 2025 WL 451473.

In Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Montogomery, Inc., et al., 2015-C-0477, – So.3d —, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that a merchant is not solidarily liable for “slip and fall” damages caused by the actions of an independent contractor, a janitorial services company. Additionally, the Thompson Court addressed the best practices for an appeals court to raise an issue “sua sponte,” i.e, on its own.

The facts of the case are straightforward. The plaintiff slipped on a puddle of water in front of a meat case in a grocery store. The merchant, Winn-Dixie, kept a floor mat in front of the meat case to address any condensation. At the time of the fall, the mat was rolled up to permit the area to be mopped. Winn-Dixie had contracted with Southern Cleaning Services, Inc. (“SCSI”) to provide janitorial services. SCSI then subcontracted with KAP Cleaning Services, Inc. (“KAP”) to perform this work. KAP’s employee was the one who rolled up the mat and was preparing to mop the meat case area when plaintiff fell.

Plaintiff settled with SCI and KAP prior to trial. However, KAP’s “third party fault” was still an issue at trial. The trial court found KAP 70% at fault and Winn-Dixie 30% at fault.

Hoping to impact the fault allocation on appeal, the plaintiff argued that Winn-Dixie possessed an exclusive duty over floor safety and was liable under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 (the “Merchant Liability Statute”) because its manager did not conduct inspections every thirty minutes as required by Winn-Dixie policies, and because the floor mat was undersized. Additionally, plaintiff argued that Winn-Dixie should have been aware of the water in front of the meat case because of a history of alleged “leaks.”

In response to plaintiff’s arguments, Winn-Dixie offered the testimony of its refrigeration maintenance technician, who explained that the meat case does not circulate water and, therefore, cannot leak. However, the technician conceded that condensation could develop depending on the temperature and humidity levels in the store.

The appeals court accepted the plaintiff’s arguments and reversed. In assessing 100% fault to Winn-Dixie, the appellate court held that: (1) Winn-Dixie could not delegate the statutorily-imposed duties of the Merchant Liability Statute; and (2) Winn-Dixie possessed “operational control” of KAP’s employee. The appeals court decision suggested that the independent contractor could never be assessed fault in connection with floor safety because Winn-Dixie possessed the duty under the law.

The Louisiana Supreme Court in Thompson reversed the appeals court. While the act of contracting with an independent contractor does not eliminate the merchant’s statutory duties, the independent contractor may also be liable if there is evidence of negligence on its part. Accordingly, the Court held that all fault must be assessed because a merchant is not solidarily liable for the actions of an independent contractor.

The Thompson Court also addressed whether Winn-Dixie controlled and supervised KAP’s employee to the extent that it had “operational control.” On this subject, the Court noted that the issue of “operational control” was not pled, briefed or argued by any party and was instead raised sua sponte by the appeals court. In this context, the Court instructed that, if an issue is raised sua sponte, the best “practice [for the appeals court] is to invite additional briefing from the parties prior to rendering judgment.”

The Thompson Court felt that it was erroneous for the appellate court to raise an issue without briefing or input from the parties on that issue. Nevertheless, it also found that the evidence in the record was insufficient to establish that Winn-Dixie exercised operational control over KAP. After determining the Winn-Dixie was not responsible for the actions of KAP’s employee, the Court applied the “Watson factors” and determined that the trial court had reasonably apportioned fault based upon the record created at trial.

Louisiana law does not recognize "strict liability" for slip and falls and a merchant is not automatically liable for someone’s injuries simply because he or she fell on the merchant’s premises. Before plaintiffs can recover damages for a slip and fall that occurs in a merchant’s store, La. R.S. 9:2800.6 requires plaintiffs to prove three separate elements in addition to causation and damages: 1) that the condition that caused the accident presented an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable; 2) that the merchant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of the condition (the “notice element”); and 3) that the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. A recent decision from the Louisiana Fifth Circuit highlights that evidence used to establish one element is not always good enough to establish another. Instead, all three of these elements are required for liability to attach.In Batiste v. United Fire and Casualty Company, 17-482 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/14/18), the plaintiff claimed she slipped and fell on water in a grocery store aisle. Batiste admitted that she did not know where the water came from, how long the water had been on the ground, or whether any employees knew the water was present. As such, the plaintiff conceded that she could not show that the grocery store created the condition or had actual knowledge of the puddle before she fell.However, Batiste claimed the store had constructive notice of the condition. To support this argument, the plaintiff pointed to evidence that a grocery store employee failed to confirm she completed a walk-around inspection of the store before the accident, in violation of company policy. Batiste argued that the puddle of water would have been discovered had the inspection been performed and that the failure to perform the inspection was proof that the grocery store possessed “constructive notice.”The court disagreed. To establish constructive notice, plaintiffs “must come forward with ‘positive evidence’ showing the damage-causing condition existed for some period of time” sufficient to place the merchant on notice of the defect. Without this “temporal element,” constructive notice cannot be inferred. An employee’s failure to perform a pre-incident inspection could not establish this temporal element. Therefore, the court found that plaintiff’s claims were properly dismissed. In closing, the court observed:

While the evidence regarding the adequacy and timing of the floor inspection may be relevant for proving a failure to exercise reasonable care to discovery a hazardous condition, a delay in the performance of such procedures offers no proof of how long any such condition may have been on the floor, a separate and equally essential requirement of the Batistes’ burden of proof under Section 9:2800.6.

The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed because she could not establish each element of her claim. Evidence of one element was not evidence of another. Reynolds LeBlanc is a partner at Keogh Cox. His practice areas include commercial litigation, personal injury claims, appeals, and other matters. Reynolds is a former teacher, who in his free time plays music and perpetually talks himself into training for his next marathon.