DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 511 So. 2d 1134.

58 citing documents.

  • Waddles v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 181 So. 3d 772 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    In view of the merchant liability statute’s history with its enactment in 1988 to overrule the decision in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., dealing with slip and fall liability, we construe paragraph D to prevent, the application of the statute in this case because of the defect in the premises which falls under the scrutiny of Article 2317.
  • Johnson v. Brookshire Grocery Co., Inc. 754 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
    In view of the merchant liability statute's history with its enactment in 1988 to overrule the decision in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., dealing with slip and fall liability, we construe paragraph D to prevent the application of the statute in this case because of the defect in the premises which falls under the scrutiny of *350 Article 2317.
  • Valley v. Specialty Restaurant Corp. 726 So. 2d 1028 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    [1] Standard of Review The appellant first asserts this court must conduct a de novo review of all issues raised, rather than apply the manifest error standard of review, because the district court erred in applying the evidentiary burdens set forth in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which was legislatively overruled by La.Rev.Stat.
  • Holden v. STATE UNIV. MED. CENTER 690 So. 2d 958 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Wilson v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. OF LOUISIANA 665 So. 2d 1252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
  • Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 655 So. 2d 309 La. 1995
  • Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 645 So. 2d 647 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • Duckett v. Kmart Corp. 645 So. 2d 621 La. 1994
    See McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (La.
  • Edwards v. K & B, INC. 641 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    The inference that a premise hazard existed because the plaintiff fell on a foreign substance was consistently drawn in slip and fall cases, culminating in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Neyrey v. Touro Infirmary 639 So. 2d 1214 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    The statute was enacted to legislatively overrule McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which held that to exculpate itself from the presumption of negligence in a slip and fall case, a store owner must prove that none of its employees caused the spill.
  • Marshall v. Sam's Wholesale Warehouse, Inc. 626 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    9:2800.6, Subsection C and the Louisiana Supreme Court decision in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., that defendant failed to exculpate itself because it did not introduce evidence that one of its employees did not knock the clothes clip on the floor.
  • Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 619 So. 2d 1176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    See McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Braud v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. 618 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Hall v. Petro of Texas, Inc., 580 So.2d at 422 ; Broussard v. Delchamps, Inc., 571 So.2d at 858 ; Estes v. Kroger Company, 556 So.2d at 241-42 .
  • Hickman v. Albertson's, Inc. 598 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Cases arising before September 1, 1990, and tried after that date fall under the rule of McCardie v. Wal-Mart, Inc., (La.
  • Reynolds v. St. Francis Medical Center 597 So. 2d 1121 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    Citing McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the trial court found that defendant failed to prove that its employees had not caused the slippery substance to be on the steps and further that defendant's inspection and cleanup procedures were not adequate under the circumstances.
  • Davis v. Wal-Mart, Inc. 594 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    9:2800.6 (Act 714 of 1988, effective July 18, 1988) at the trial of this action, applying instead the McCardie criteria for recovery in a slip-fall case recognized in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Holmes v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA 587 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    9:2800.6 was enacted to counteract the merchant's burden of proof requirement established by the Supreme Court in McCardie v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Marshall v. a & P Food Co. of Tallulah 587 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • Stockwell v. Great Atlantic & Pacific 583 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    9:2800 was a direct response to the Louisiana Supreme Court ruling in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., where the court concluded that Wal-Mart did not meet its two-fold burden under Brown v. Winn-Dixie, because it failed to prove that none of its employees caused the spill which precipitated the injury.
  • Crandell v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 580 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
    See also McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (La.
  • Hall v. Petro of Texas, Inc. 580 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    9:2800.6, a merchant's duty to call his employees as witnesses in a slip and fall case was even more stringent, being governed by the intimation in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., that a merchant must call all his employees to prove they did not cause the spill.
  • Fuller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 577 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    We found that the plaintiff had established a prima facia case sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Wal-Mart to exculpate itself from the presumption of negligence as required by McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Manieri v. National Tea Co. 573 So. 2d 1268 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    In rendering its judgment, the trial court applied the evidentiary defense burden described in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, *1270 rather than the burden of exculpation set forth in LSA-R.S.
  • Hoffman v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets 572 So. 2d 825 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Diaz v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc., (La.App.
  • Broussard v. Delchamps, Inc. 571 So. 2d 855 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
    9:2800.6; McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., McCargar v. Babin Motors, Inc.
  • Lane v. American Dairy Queen, Inc. 571 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Brown v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Crowther v. Kmart Corp. 568 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    In McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court concluded that Wal-Mart did not meet its twofold burden under Brown because it failed to prove that its employees did not cause the spill.
  • Laborde v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 563 So. 2d 994 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
    In McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court concluded that Wal-Mart did not meet its twofold burden under Brown because it failed to prove that none of its employees caused the spill which precipitated the injury.
  • Boudreaux v. Melville Corp. 562 So. 2d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    McCardie v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc., Kelly v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea, (La.
  • Barnes v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 561 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    This case was tried on June 23, 1988, thus the rule of McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is applicable.
  • Clesi v. Tenneco, Inc. 560 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that merely proving adequate cleanup procedures is insufficient to prove a spill was not caused by one of the store's employees in a slip and fall accident in a commercial establishment.
  • Matthews v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 555 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    In McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court concluded that Wal-Mart did not meet its twofold burden under Brown because it failed to prove that none of its employees caused the spill which allegedly precipitated the injury.
  • Hanks v. Petroleum Club of Lafayette 553 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Arnold v. T.G.
  • Bonnette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 548 So. 2d 310 La. 1989
    MARCUS, J., would grant and overrule McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Morgan v. Stanley Stores, Inc. 550 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (La.
  • Lewis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 546 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., supra ; Miller v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., supra .
  • Kelley v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 545 So. 2d 1099 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
    In McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., -1135 (La.1987) the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized plaintiff bears the burden of proving "that a foreign substance on the floor caused her to slip, fall, and sustain injuries," and that once plaintiff met her burden, "the burden of proof shifts to the owner of the store to exculpate itself from the presumptio
  • Bonnette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 542 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    The principal issue on appeal is whether the defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., presented sufficient proof to exculpate itself from liability under the well established standard, in slip and fall cases, which was reiterated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Perron v. Ambassador Ins. Co. 541 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    The plaintiff would have this court hold the defendant to the standard of care imposed on store owners in McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (La.
  • Ratliff v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 538 So. 2d 1062 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
  • Brown v. Schwegmann's Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 536 So. 2d 1227 La. 1989
  • Manuel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. 535 So. 2d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Brown v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 535 So. 2d 1307 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • Hall v. K-Mart Department Store No. 7386 534 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
    Specifically, K-Mart contends (1) that it met its burden of proof before and after McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (2) that the trial judge misinterpreted McCardie , (3) that the trial judge erred in retroactively applying his interpretation of McCardie and (4) that the trial judge should have allowed defense evidence impeaching the credibility of the plaintiff, Charlie Hall.
  • Brown v. Schwegmann's Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 534 So. 2d 1344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., *1346 Brown v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Smith v. Winn-Dixie Stores of Louisiana, Inc., (La.App.
  • Diaz v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarkets, Inc. 533 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Miller v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. 531 So. 2d 763 La. 1988
    The Court notes that there is a mistake in the Southern Reporter in the case of McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which was referred to by the court of appeal in the present case.
  • Miller v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. 531 So. 2d 763 La. 1988
    NOTES [*] The Court notes that there is a mistake in the Southern Reporter in the case of McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which was referred to by the court of appeal in the present case.
  • Dickson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 535 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    See McCardie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Kimble v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 527 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988