Lashondra Jones v. Market Basket Stores, Inc.
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., April 27, 2022
Lashondra Jones v. Market Basket Stores, Inc., No. CA-0021-0354 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Mar. 30, 2022).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co. 980 So. 2d 654
- 330 So. 3d 1145 not in our corpus
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