Joseph v. Lowe's Home Ctrs.
| Docket Number | 22-694 |
| Decision Date | 24 May 2023 |
| Parties | DEMETRIA JOSEPH v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA NO. 136556 HONORABLE LEWIS H. PITMAN, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Gabe A. Duhon George A. Day, Gabe A. Duhon, L.L.C., COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Demetria Joseph
David Scott Rainwater, Lindsay C. Rabalais, Taylor Wellons, Politz COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Jonathan W. Perry, and Gary J. Ortego, Judges.
Plaintiff Demetria Joseph (Plaintiff), filed a personal injury suit against Defendant, Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (Lowe's), claiming that its negligence resulted in personal injuries she sustained when a roll of vinyl flooring fell from a shelf at its New Iberia store, injuring her leg and foot.
Following a hearing on July 19, 2022, and by Judgment signed August 25 2022, the trial court granted Lowe's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Lowe's. Plaintiff appeals.
This matter arose from an accident that occurred at a Lowe's store location in New Iberia on October 2, 2019, when Plaintiff was shopping for laminate flooring.
The laminate flooring rolls were initially arranged vertically with a wooden beam running along the bottom of the shelf along with a security chain, to maintain the rolls in place.
After Plaintiff examined the flooring rolls, she selected one roll she was interested in purchasing. However, Plaintiff could only find that one roll of the selected flooring on the shelf, so she asked for assistance from a Lowe's employee, Kathryn Williams ("Ms. Williams," or "employee"). On her first encounter with Ms. Williams, Plaintiff asked if there were any more rolls of her chosen flooring in stock, so Ms. Williams left the aisle to check the store's online inventory database. Learning there was only that one roll, Ms. Williams returned to the flooring aisle to inform Plaintiff.
Plaintiff then asked Ms. Williams to check if any nearby Lowe's locations had the same rolls of flooring in stock, and Ms. Williams left the aisle a second time to search the inventory database of other locations. Upon confirming online that none of the nearby locations had these same rolls in stock, Ms. Williams returned to the aisle a third time to inform Plaintiff and witnessed a heavy roll of laminated flooring fall in a somewhat domino manner, with one roll hitting the Plaintiff's left leg and foot.
As a result of this incident, on October 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed her "Petition for Damages." On March 31, 2022, Lowe's filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, as to liability, along with a Motion to Strike, and other motions. Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendant's motions. On July 19, 2022, hearings were held on all motions, after which the trial court granted Lowe's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, dismissing, with prejudice, Plaintiff's claims by Judgment signed on August 25, 2022. Plaintiff timely filed her appeal.
On appeal Plaintiff assigns four errors which we reproduce verbatim:
STANDARD OF REVIEW- SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A court of appeal reviews summary judgments de novo, using the same standard used by the trial court.
Planchard v. New Hotel Monteleone, LLC, 21-347, pp. 2-3 (La. 12/10/21), 332 So.3d 623, 625 (emphasis added).
Thus, "[a] motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact for all or part of the relief prayed for by a litigant." Caldwell v. St. Charles Gaming Co., 19-1238, pp. 5-6 (La. 1/29/20), 347 So.3d 562, 565-66, quoting Reynolds v. Bordelon, 14-2371, pp. 2-3 (La. 6/30/15), 172 So.3d 607, 610; La.Code Civ.P. art. 966.
"[F]acts are material if they potentially insure or preclude recovery, affect a litigant's ultimate success, or determine the outcome of the legal dispute." Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512, p.27 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730, 751, (quoting South Louisiana Bank v. Williams, 591 So.2d 375, 377 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1991), writs denied, 596 So.2d 211 (La.1992) (alteration in original). 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.
Whether a fact is material is determined in light of the relevant substantive law. Weingartner v. La. IceGators, 02-1181 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/17/03), 854 So.2d 898, writ denied, 03-1388 (La. 9/19/03), 853 So.2d 645.
Therefore our appellate review starts with an examination of the relevant substantive law that applies when a retail store customer asserts that injuries produced by "falling merchandise" are caused by a merchant's negligence.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2800.6 (A), set forth below, establishes the duty attached to a retailer, such as Lowe's, in a "falling merchandise" case:
A. 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.
See Planchard, 332 So.3d 625; Smith v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 98-2085 (La. 11/30/99), 754 So.2d 209; Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-445 (La. 11/28/00), 774 So.2d 84.
Under La.R.S. 9:2800.6 (A) it is not enough for a plaintiff to establish at trial that an accident occurred.
Smith v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 754 So.2d 209, 214.
In a "falling merchandise" case under R.S. 9:2800.6(A), as in the present case, the standard is that the merchant must use reasonable care to keep its aisles, passageways, and floors in a reasonably safe condition and free of hazards which may cause injury. Further, a Plaintiff who is injured by falling merchandise must prove, even by circumstantial evidence, that a premise hazard existed. Id. Once a Plaintiff proves a prima facie premise hazard, the defendant has the burden to exculpate itself from fault by showing that it used reasonable care to avoid such hazards by means such as periodic clean up and inspection procedures. Id.
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 774 So.2d 84, 90.
To prevail in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove each of five separate elements, among these those emphasized here: (1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard (the duty element); (2) the defendant failed to conform his conduct to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty element); (3) the defendant's standard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (4) the defendant's substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries (the scope of liability or scope of protection element); and (5) actual damage (the damages element). Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032, 1051 (La. 1991), on reh'g (May 28, 1992), quoting Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1, 4 (La.1989).
Plaintiff's Contention:
Plaintiff's main contention and argument on appeal is that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial