CA-0021-0354 Nonprecedential Processed

Lashondra Jones v. Market Basket Stores, Inc.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed March 30, 2022

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., April 27, 2022

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
NUMBER 21-354

LASHONDRA JONES

VERSUS

MARKET BASKET STORES, INC.

CONERY, Judge, concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons.

I join in the majority opinion to the extent it maintains the trial court’s decision

to accept Jason English as an expert in the field of safety engineering. Like the

majority, I find no clear error in the trial court’s decision to do so.

However, I am constrained to respectfully disagree from the remainder of the

majority opinion. Rather, I find that the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed

pursuant to the manifest error standard of review.

The majority preliminarily determines that a de novo review is warranted due

to its finding that the trial court erroneously stated that “the large cardboard box, it -

the box – collapsed, causing [Ms. Jones] to fall onto the box on her right side and

sustained personal injuries[.]” It was, of course, the pallet guard that collapsed as

Ms. Jones stepped on it, not the box. I find that the majority opinion is based

primarily on this coupling of words in the trial court’s ruling. Rather, the record

fully supports the trial court’s judgment using the appropriate manifest error

standard of review.

First, the supreme court has explained that it is a “well-settled rule that the

district court’s oral or written reasons for judgment form no part of the judgment,

and that appellate courts review judgments, not reasons for judgment.” Bellard v.

American Cent. Ins. Co., 07-1335, p. 25 (La. 4/18/08), 980 So.2d 654, 671.

Moreover, the record is clear from Ms. Jones’ testimony that when she stepped

on the pallet guard in order to retrieve a watermelon, it gave way, causing her to fall,

doing so “against the watermelon bin on [her] right side.” Ms. Jones specifically

testified that she “stepped on it (the pallet guard) I didn’t slip on it.” As she stepped

on the pallet guard, it “collapsed underneath [her].” Ms. Jones testimony was

uncontradicted in this regard, and the photographic evidence supports Ms. Jones’

account of the pallet guard collapsing. The phots clearly show the pallet guard away

from the box, consistent with Ms. Jones standing on it, causing the pallet guard to

give way and separate from the box as shown in the pictures in evidence.

Additionally, Mr. English explained that Market Basket’s use of the

watermelon bin placed atop the pallet guard, as encountered by Ms. Jones, posed a

risk in several respects. Not only did the pallet guard pose a tripping hazard, but it

elevated the watermelon bin and placed the customer at a greater distance from the

produce, making it more difficult to retrieve the produce. Those reaching for a

watermelon when the bin was depleted would naturally be inclined to step onto the

pallet guard in order to have better access to the produce, just as Ms. Jones did.

Despite that hazard, Mr. English explained, Market Basket failed to place adequate

warning signs on the pallet guard or the box. The box instead had downward

pointing arrows which read “step,” leading Ms. Jones to believe that the pallet guard

provided a “step.”

These combined conditions, along with Market Basket’s failure to restock the

bin more quickly, posed a hazardous condition, according to Mr. English. And, of

course, Ms. Jones’ accident resulted from Market Basket’s choice to use the

bin/pallet guard display to sell watermelons. Market Basked called no opposing

expert witness, and the testimony of Ms. Jones and Mr. English on these points was

uncontradicted.

2

Given the presence of this evidence in the record, and especially the trial

court’s opportunity to evaluate the credibility of both Ms. Jones and Mr. English at

trial, I find no manifest error in the trial court’s ruling and would therefore affirm

both the trial court’s finding of liability and its award of damages. See Garrett v.

DG La., LLC, 21-351 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/15/21), 330 So.3d 1145, writ denied, 22-

121 (La. 3/15/21), _ So.3d _ (2022 WL 780489).

3