Willie Beatrice Smith Versus Walmart Inc. and Xyz Insurance Company

WILLIE BEATRICE SMITH NO. 24-CA-18

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

WALMART INC. AND XYZ INSURANCE COURT OF APPEAL
COMPANY
STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 816-749, DIVISION "L"
HONORABLE R. CHRISTOPHER COX, III, JUDGE PRESIDING

December 05, 2024

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.

AFFIRMED
SJW
MEJ
JJM

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
WILLIE BEATRICE SMITH
Pius A. Obioha
Joseph R. Barbie, Sr.

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
WALMART INC.
Christopher James-Lomax
Peter S. Martin

WINDHORST, J.

In this slip and fall case, Willie Beatrice Smith, plaintiff/appellant, appeals the

trial court’s July 13, 2023 judgment, granting Walmart, Inc.’s, defendant/appellee,

motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s claim with prejudice. We

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 16, 2021, plaintiff filed a petition for damages, alleging that she

tripped and fell at a Walmart in Kenner, Louisiana, and suffered injuries as a result

of her fall. Specifically, plaintiff claimed that she tripped on a “loose uneven metal

strip at the entrance door” of the Walmart, which was not properly fastened to the

floor. As a result of her fall, plaintiff asserted that she sustained serious bodily

injuries and incurred medical expenses.

Plaintiff alleged that the defective floor created an unreasonably dangerous

condition about which Walmart employees knew or should have known, and that

Walmart created a hazardous condition by failing to mitigate or cure the defect in

the unfastened metal strip on the floor. Plaintiff also alleged that Walmart failed to

warn of the hazardous condition. As a result of Walmart’s negligence, plaintiff

asserted that it was liable for her injuries and sought special and general damages.

On November 30, 2022, Walmart filed a motion for summary judgment,

seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against it. Walmart asserted that plaintiff was

unable to satisfy her burden of proof at trial under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 because plaintiff

could not show Walmart created or had actual or constructive notice of the alleged

hazardous condition. In support of its motion, Walmart attached plaintiff’s petition

for damages and her deposition transcript.

In her deposition, plaintiff testified that as she entered the Walmart, she

tripped over a “metal strip” at the threshold of the entrance because the strip was

loose. Plaintiff stated she did not know how the metal strip may have come loose

24-CA-18 1

before the accident. Plaintiff also conceded she had no information to suggest that

a Walmart employee caused the strip to become loose or to indicate how long the

strip may have been loose pre-incident. As a result, Walmart argued plaintiff had

no affirmative evidence to establish Walmart caused the metal strip to come loose

or had actual or constructive notice of the metal strip’s condition.

In opposition, plaintiff argued there were genuine issues of material fact as to

whether Walmart had actual or constructive notice of the shaky, unstable, loose, and

raised metal threshold at the store entrance. In support of her opposition, plaintiff

prepared and submitted an affidavit regarding the incident and photographs of the

threshold where she fell.1 In the affidavit, plaintiff stated that, after her accident, an

employee told her Walmart usually placed a door mat over the metal threshold

because of its unstable condition.

After a hearing on June 26, 2023, the trial court found no genuine issues of

material fact existed and granted Walmart’s motion for summary judgment. In oral

reasons for judgment, the trial court summarized plaintiff’s deposition testimony and

affidavit statements regarding the incident as follows: (1) “Plaintiff testified that the

metal strip over which she tripped came ‘loose some kind of way’”; (2) Plaintiff

stated she “observed lots of dried and built-up mud or dirt which had settled

underneath the raised-up compartment”; (3) “She further stated that a Walmart

employee told her that a mat is usually placed over the threshold because it is

unstable”; and (4) “Plaintiff testified that she does not know how the strip came

loose, who caused the strip to become loose, nor how long the strip was loose prior

to her fall.”

With regard to plaintiff’s affidavit, the trial court found that plaintiff’s

affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay evidence in that “an out of court statement

1 Plaintiff apparently also submitted a surveillance video of the entrance to the Walmart where she fell. The
video, however, was not included within the record and it is unclear whether it was properly filed in the trial
court.

24-CA-18 2

made by an unidentified employee is insufficient to establish constructive notice.”

As a result, the trial court refused to consider this statement.

In finding a lack of evidence to support plaintiff’s claim, the trial court

concluded that plaintiff’s testimony was speculative and insufficient to show the

condition complained of existed for some time before the fall. The trial court also

pointed out that there was no evidence of any prior incidents at this threshold even

though the surveillance video showed that this was a highly trafficked entrance.

Thus, by judgment dated July 13, 2023, the trial court granted Walmart’s motion for

summary judgment.

On July 21, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for new trial and motion to vacate,

asserting the granting of Walmart’s motion for summary judgment was contrary to

the law and evidence. The trial court denied this motion.

LAW and ANALYSIS

On appeal, plaintiff asserts the trial court erred in finding there is no genuine

issue of material fact regarding whether Walmart had constructive notice of the

hazardous condition that caused her to slip and fall. We agree with the trial court’s

conclusion.

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum,

and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and

that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966 A(3).

The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of proof to show no

genuine issue of material fact exists. La. C.C.P. art. 966 D; Swatt v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., 21-66 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/29/21), 334 So.3d 1054, 1058, writ denied,

22-205 (La. 4/5/22), 335 So.3d 833. However, if the mover will not bear the burden

of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion for summary

judgment, the mover’s burden on the motion does not require him to negate all

essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, but rather to point

24-CA-18 3

out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to

the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense. Id. The burden is on the adverse party

to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of

material fact, or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” La.

C.C.P. art. 966 D(1).

Appellate courts review a judgment granting or denying a motion for

summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria governing the trial court’s

consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Swatt, 334 So.3d at

1058. An appellate court’s de novo review of the trial court’s ruling on summary

judgment is generally from the same viewpoint as that of the trial court, but with a

fresh consideration of the exhibits and application of the law. Id; Allday v. Newpark

Square I Off. Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 20-358 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/18/21), 327 So.3d 566.

Trial court rulings on motions for summary judgment are reviewed without regard

or deference because credibility is not at issue. Id. Appellate courts ask the same

questions the trial court does in determining whether summary judgment is

appropriate: whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the

mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Breaux v. Fresh Start Properties,

L.L.C., 11-262 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/29/11), 78 So.3d 849, 852.

A fact is material if it potentially insures or precludes recovery, affects a

litigant’s ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute. Hines v.

Garrett, 04-806 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 764, 765 (per curiam); Montalbano v.

Persich, 18-602 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/29/19), 274 So.3d 855, 860, writ denied, 19-1051

(La. 10/1/19), 280 So.3d 161. A genuine issue is one as to which reasonable persons

could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, there is no

need for trial on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate. Id. In determining

whether the evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court cannot

24-CA-18 4

make credibility determinations, evaluate testimony, or otherwise weigh the

evidence. Id at 860-61.

In a slip or fall case against a merchant, a plaintiff must prove the essential

elements of a standard negligence claim in addition to the requirements under La.

R.S. 9:2800.6. Sheffie v. Wal-Mart Louisiana LLC, 13-792 (La. App. 5 Cir.

2/26/14), 134 So.3d 80, 83-84, writ denied, 14-881 (La. 6/20/14), 141 So.3d 813;

Williams v. Supervalu, Inc., 18-143 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/7/18), 259 So.3d 547, 551.

La. R.S. 9:2800.6, in pertinent part, provides:

(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.

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. Lousteau v. K-

Mart Corp., 03-1182 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/30/04), 871 So.2d 618, 623, writ denied, 04-

1027 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 835. The owner of a commercial establishment has

an affirmative duty to keep his premises in a safe condition, but he is not the insurer

of his patrons’ safety. Bertaut v. Corral Gulfsouth, Inc., 16-93 (La. App. 5 Cir.

12/21/16), 209 So.3d 352, 357.

To satisfy the “constructive notice” requirement, the plaintiff must prove the

condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if the

24-CA-18 5

merchant had exercised reasonable care. La. R.S. 9:2800.6 C(1); Swatt, 334 So.3d

at 1059. Constructive notice is not proven by the mere presence of a merchant’s

employee in the vicinity in which the condition exists, unless it is shown that the

employee knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the

condition. Id. This element requires that the plaintiff make a positive showing of

the existence of the condition prior to the fall. White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-

393 (La. 9/9/97), 699 So.2d 1081, 1086. While there is no bright-line time period,

a plaintiff must show “‘the condition existed for such a period of time’” and the

defendant-merchant should have noticed the defect in exercising reasonable care.

Sheffie, 134 So.3d at 84; White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La. 9/9/97), 699

So.2d 1081, 1084.

Upon review, we find the plaintiff cannot satisfy her burden of proving that

Walmart had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition which

caused plaintiff to fall. Plaintiff cannot prove the alleged hazardous condition of the

threshold existed for any period of time before her fall. Plaintiff has no evidence

Walmart had any knowledge of the alleged hazardous condition prior to her fall.

Plaintiff also has nothing to show Walmart, in the exercise of reasonable care, should

have known about the condition.

Considering the forgoing, we find no error in the trial court’s granting of

Walmart’s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing plaintiff’s claim

against it.

DECREE

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED

24-CA-18 6

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
DECEMBER 5, 2024 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-CA-18
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
R. CHRISTOPHER COX, III (DISTRICT JUDGE)
JOSEPH R. BARBIE, SR. (APPELLANT) PIUS A. OBIOHA (APPELLANT) PETER S. MARTIN (APPELLEE)
SIDNEY J. HARDY (APPELLEE)

MAILED
CHRISTOPHER JAMES-LOMAX (APPELLEE)
ATTORNEY AT LAW
909 POYDRAS STREET
SUITE 1000
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112