The Supreme Court "Cleans Up" the Liability of Merchants for Slip-and-Falls Caused by Independent Contractors

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.

In Louisiana, a “statutory employer” is entitled to protection from tort suit. With limited exceptions, the defense must be supported by a contractual provision declaring the defendant to be a statutory employer in a manner consistent with La. RS 23:1061. In Spears v. Exxon Mobil Corporation & Turner Industries Group, LLC, 2019-0309, 291 So. 3d 1087 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 2019), the defendant-premises owner successfully asserted the defense, notwithstanding multiple issues with respect to the nature and terms of the agreement and an alleged lack of privity with the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

In Spears, the plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on the production floor at the Exxon plastics plant. Spears filed suit against multiple parties, including Exxon, alleging it failed to provide a safe premises. The plaintiff worked for Poly Trucking who operated at Exxon under a contract with Polly-America. Poly-America, LP and Exxon, in turn, were signatories to an agreement entitled "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" which stated that Polly-America was to:

"… provide pickup/delivery service… For all containers of Polyethylene scrap as well as Polyethylene's scrap recovery vacuum service for a quoted amount of one dollar.”

The "STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER" also contained a section expressly recognizing Exxon:

“… as the statutory employer of employees of Poly America and subcontractors while such employees are engaged in the contracted work.”

Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment based upon its status as Spears’ statutory employer. The Trial Court granted the motion and dismissed Exxon with prejudice. On appeal, Spears argued that the contract between Exxon and Poly-America presented multiple issues of fact and law which necessitated a reversal of the summary judgment. The issues identified by the plaintiff included the following:

1. The agreement upon which Exxon relied was a “Contract of Sale,” not a “Contract for Services;”
2. The agreement specified that the signatory contractor (Poly America) was an "Independent Contractor;"
3. The plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was neither a signatory to, nor specifically identified anywhere in the agreement; and,
4. Although the agreement designated Exxon as the statutory employer of the “employees of Poly America,” Exxon is not specifically designated as the statutory employer of the employees of Poly Trucking, the plaintiff’s immediate employer.

The First Circuit Court of Appeal expressly rejected each of the plaintiff's arguments.

First, the Court pointed out that the law does not mandate that the contract containing the statutory employment language be of any particular type. As such, whether the contract was considered a contract of sale or for services was irrelevant.

Secondly, the Court rejected the claim that contractual language describing Exxon as an “independent contractor” required a rejection of the statutory defense. The Spears Court reasoned that nothing in La. RS 23:1061 prevents an independent contractor from entering into a written agreement whereby the principal to that contract is recognized as the statutory employer of the employees of the contractor and its subcontractors.

Finally, the Court rejected the claim the defense should be rejected because the plaintiff’s immediate employer was not a party to the contract. As discussed in Spears, the law provides that the contract establishing statutory employment can be with either the plaintiff’s immediate employer or the plaintiff’s statutory employer, and Poly America qualified as the plaintiff’s statutory employer under the “two contract” theory because the work that Poly America subcontracted to the plaintiff’s immediate employer (Poly Trucking) was included within Poly America’s “STANDARD PURCHASE ORDER” contract with Exxon.

The Spears opinion highlights that the statutory defense should be maintained, even under unusual facts, when the requirements of La. RS 23:1061 are satisfied.

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.