Letetra Wilson v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LETETRA WILSON NO. 2023 CW 1019

VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.

JANUARY 29, 2024

In Re: Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., applying for supervisory
writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East
Baton Rouge, No. 711007.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. We find the trial court erred in its
September 1, 2023 judgment denying the motion for summary
judgment filed by defendant, Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. Under La.
R.S. 9:2800.6, plaintiff, Letetra Wilson, had the burden of
proving the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm
that was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant either created or
had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous
condition, and the defendant failed to exercise reasonable
care. Latour v. Steamboats, LLC, 2023-00027 ( La. 10/20/23), 371
So. 3d 1026, 1035-36. The question of whether a condition is
open and obvious is embraced within the breach of the duty
element of the duty/risk analysis and is not a jurisprudential
doctrine barring recovery, but only a factor of the risk/utility
balancing test. Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2022-00849
La. 3/17/23), 359 So.3d 467, 478. Specifically, it falls
within the ambit of the second factor of the risk/utility
balancing test, which considers the likelihood and magnitude of
the harm, and it is not a consideration for determining the
legal question of the existence of a duty. Id. The magnitude
of harm factor asks whether the condition presents a risk of
great or small injury and the likelihood of each, which includes
a consideration of the open and obviousness of the condition.
Rainey v. Knight, 2023-0133 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/3/23), So.3d
2023 WL 7270745, * 4. For a hazard to be considered open and
obvious, it must be one that is open and obvious to all who may
encounter it; if so, that reasonable person would avoid it, and
the factor will weigh in favor of finding the condition not
unreasonably dangerous. Id. Additionally, the lack of reported
complaints regarding a complained-of condition indicates a low
risk of harm. Id. Considering the plaintiff's own testimony
and the apparent lack of prior complaints or incidents, we find
that a reasonable person would have found the condition ( a stack
of bottled water cases) open and obvious and would have avoided
it. The stack of bottled water cases was apparent to all who
encountered it; further, a pedestrian has a duty to see what
should be seen and is bound to observe his course to

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 2023 CW 1019

PAGE 2 OF 2

see if his pathway is clear. Id. Accordingly, this factor
weighs in favor of finding the complained-of condition to not be
unreasonably dangerous, and we find the likelihood and magnitude
of the harm to be minimal. Id. While no evidence was presented
as to costs of prevention, the display of the stacked water
bottles had utility in order that customers could readily find
the items and presented a minimal risk of harm. In conclusion,
we find that the burden shifted to the plaintiff, Letetra
Wilson, and she has failed to produce evidence sufficient to
establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on
an essential element of her claim. Therefore, we reverse the
trial court's September 1, 2 02 3 judgment, grant the motion for
summary judgment filed by defendant, and dismiss the claims of
the plaintiff, Letetra Wilson, against the defendant, Dollar
Tree Stores, Inc.

PMc
CHH
SMM

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT