Lang v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., WINN-DIXIE
Decision Date | 22 December 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 7819,WINN-DIXIE,7819 |
Citation | 230 So.2d 383 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Parties | Leslie LANG and Mrs. Lucille Fornea Lang v.LOUISIANA, INC., and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. |
W. K. Christovich of Christovich & Kearney, New Orleans, for appellants.
Dewell D. Pittman, Bogalusa, for appellees.
Before LOTTINGER, REID and BLANCHE, JJ.
This appeal arises out of a 'slip-fall' suit to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Mrs. Lucille Fornea Lang and for community expenses incurred by plaintiff Leslie Lang resulting from his wife's alleged fall while shopping at defendant's grocery store in Bogalusa, Louisiana. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff wife in the principal sum of $2,000.00 and in favor of plaintiff husband in the principal sum of $417.07 and against the store owner and its liability insurer, in solido. From this adverse judgment defendants perfected this suspensive appeal, which appeal was answered by plaintiff wife seeking an increase in quantum. We affirm.
Defendants' first assignment of error urges that the trial court erred in accepting plaintiff's testimony that she fell in defendant's store as a result of stepping on 'cut up okra' on the floor of the grocery store. Plaintiff wife testified she entered defendant's store by herself at about 5:50 P.M. to purchase some watermelons, and after obtaining a shopping cart she proceeded down an aisle of the store to the rear thereof, pushing the cart in front of her. Plaintiff testified that as she was proceeding down this aisle where the produce and frozen foods were located, her foot suddenly slipped causing her to fall to the floor. Plaintiff further testified that after she fell she looked around to ascertain on what her foot had slipped whereupon she noticed what she described as several pieces of 'thawed frozen cut-up okra' scattered about the floor. Plaintiff further testified that she was familiar with the canning and freezing of okra and that she was certain the okra on the floor was frozen, cut-up okra which had thawed out and become slimy and slippery. She stated the frozen food counter was about six feet from the place where she fell. Plaintiff further described a green streak upon the floor left by her heel where it had slipped upon a piece of the okra. Plaintiff testified that after her fall she got up and proceeded toward the front of the store where she was met by the manager to whom she related her experience, after which she returned to the scene of her fall and pointed out the okra to the manager, who then ordered a store employee to clean up the spilled okra. The store manager contradicted plaintiff's testimony and stated that he was not shown any spilled produce on the floor by the plaintiff nor did he detect any and further that he did not have a store employee clean up any produce as plaintiff alleged.
The presiding judge in his written reasons for judgment made the following pertinent comments:
It is well settled that factual conclusions of trier of fact are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed upon review in absence of manifest error, especially when based upon evaluation of credibility of opposing witnesses. Kendrick v. Kendrick, 236 La. 34, 106 So.2d 707 (1958); Orlando v. Polito, 228 La. 846, 84 So.2d 433 (1955). We have no reason to disturb the trial court's findings of fact, which obviously involved determinations of credibility of the witnesses, and we cannot say the trial court committed manifest error in accepting plaintiff's version of how the accident occurred including the presence of the thawed-out, cut-up okra. Defendants' first specification of error is without merit.
Defendants' second specification of error urges that the trial court erred in charging the store owner with constructive notice of the cut-up okra on the floor as a result of his finding of a lack of due care on the part of the store personnel, while in their third specification of error the defendants contend the trial court erred in applying, in effect, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where there was no basis under the evidence or the law for application of such doctrine. These two specifications of error will be treated together.
The record reflects the absence of any evidence indicating that the okra was placed upon the floor by an employee of the defendant store, and the trial court in its reasons for judgment stated that there was no direct evidence of any actual notice to or knowledge on the part of any of the store employees of the presence of the okra upon the floor. The trial court stated in its reasons for judgment, however, that 'a review of the evidence convinces me that there was not a sufficient degree of due care on the part of the store personnel to prevent my conclusion of constructive notice.'
In Smith v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 166 So.2d 322 (La.App.1st Cir. 1964), we had occasion to summarize some of the leading jurisprudence in the area of slip-fall cases, from which we quote the following excerpts:
'The above language was cited with approval by us in the case of Stillwell v. Winn-Dixie Hill, Inc., La.App., 146 So.2d 707. Also pertinent is the holding of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal in the case of LeJeune v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., La.App., 136 So.2d 157, wherein the Peters case was cited, the Court holding as follows:
Defendants take the position that in accordance with the foregoing jurisprudence as well as other cases cited by defendants, plaintiffs bear the burden of proving constructive notice on the part of defendant storekeeper of the presence of the okra on the aisle, there being no evidence that the okra was placed on the aisle by an employee of the store nor that the defendant store owner had actual notice thereof. Defendants further contend that plaintiffs failed to carry this burden of proof in that the record fails to indicate how long the okra was on the floor and therefore fails to show that it was present on the floor for such a length of time as to amount to constructive notice to defendant storekeeper. Defendants further contend that the trial court erred as a matter of law in charging defendants with constructive notice on the basis of lack of sufficient degree of due care exercised by defendant storekeeper with regard to inspection procedures and that the trial court erred in applying, in effect, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. We do not agree with these contentions.
A review of the record convinces us that the trial court committed no manifest error in concluding that the defendant storekeeper's inspection and clean-up procedures were inadequate, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonzales v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
... ... A similar result was reached in Lang v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 230 So.2d 383 (La.App.1st Cir. 1969) in which the case was decided for the plaintiff on the basis of the fact that since plaintiff slipped on several pieces of thawed out but originally frozen okra and since 30 to 60 minutes is required for frozen okra to thaw the ... ...
-
Masters v. State Farm Ins. Co.
... ... Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit ... July 5, 1972 ... Rehearing Denied ... Foodtown, Inc., 195 So.2d 439 (La.App.3rd Cir., 1967); okra, Lang v ... ...
-
Ciminski v. Finn Corp., Inc.
... ... El Rancho Markets, 4 Ariz.App. 183, 418 P.2d 613 (1966); Lang v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 230 So.2d 383 (La.App.1969), Writ refused, ... ...
-
92 2372 La.App. 1 Cir. 8/22/94, Welch v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
... ... See Lofton v. Travelers Ins. Co., 208 So.2d 739, 741 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 252 La. 457, 211 So.2d 327 (1968). In a few cases this burden was found to be too onerous on the plaintiff. In Lang v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, 230 So.2d 383 (La.App. 1st Cir.1969), writ denied, 255 La. 815, 233 So.2d 252 (1970), and Joynes v. Valloft & Dreaux, 1 So.2d 108 (La.App.Orl.Cir.1941), the courts held that where plaintiff proved a dangerous object caused him to slip and fall, the merchant had the burden ... ...