Roach v. Walmart, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-13114 SECTION M (4) |
| Parties | SHARON ROACH v. WALMART, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Before the Court is a motion by defendant Walmart, Inc. ("Walmart") for summary judgment.1 Plaintiff Sharon Roach responds in opposition,2 and Walmart replies in further support of its motion.3 Having considered the parties' memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion, holding that Roach has not met her summary judgment burden of demonstrating the existence of a contested issue of fact concerning Walmart's lack of actual or constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition, i.e., water on the floor from a leaking roof.
This case involves a slip and fall in a Walmart. On September 18, 2018, Roach was shopping at a Walmart store in Marrero, Louisiana.4 Roach alleges that, while she was shopping, she slipped on a liquid substance and fell to the floor.5 She believes that the liquid was water from a leaky roof.6 Roach claims that she sustained multiple physical, psychological, and economic injuries as a result of the incident.7 At her deposition, Roach described the accident as follows:
Roach did not see anything wet on the floor before or after she fell, and she did not feel anything wet with her hands or on her skin when she fell.9 She speculated that her shoes were wet because she slipped.10 Roach further testified that she heard Walmart employees say that the floor was wet from a roof leak, but she did not look at the ceiling and did not see water on the floor.11 Roach claims that the water was soaked up by her pants.12 Roach did not know how long the water might have been on the floor or the last time a Walmart employee inspected the area.13 Further, Roach's granddaughter, Rayon Roach, testified that the water must have come from the ceiling, but she did not see it falling.14 Rayon also testified that she heard Walmart employees state that the roof had been leaking.15
Walmart filed the instant motion for summary judgment arguing that Roach cannot meet her burden of proof under La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B), which governs premises liability for merchants.16 Specifically, Walmart argues that Roach has no evidence that Walmart either created or had actualor constructive notice of the condition that allegedly caused the accident or that Walmart failed to exercise reasonable care in creating or failing to remedy the allegedly wet floor.17 Walmart further argues that Roach has no evidence that a Walmart employee, rather than a patron, was responsible for the condition that allegedly caused her accident.18
Roach argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Walmart had actual or constructive notice of the alleged water on the floor.19 As to actual notice, Roach argues that there are disputed issues of fact whether unidentified Walmart employees "made statements against interest" that the water on the floor was from a ceiling leak they knew existed because it had been raining all day.20 Roach contends that the statements are corroborated by a surveillance video supposedly showing Walmart employee "Corey" looking up and gesturing towards the ceiling while talking on a walkie-talkie after the accident, and showing other employees, a half-hour before the accident, pointing above the area where it occurred.21 Similarly, Roach argues that the Walmart employees' "statements against interest" regarding the leaking roof and the surveillance video showing employees in the area before the accident prove constructive notice.22 Further, Roach argues that the Walmart employees would have discovered the water if they had exercised reasonable care in cleaning the area.23
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as toany material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). "Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Id. A party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the basis for summary judgment and identifying those portions of the record, discovery, and any affidavits supporting the conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323. If the moving party meets that burden, then the nonmoving party must use evidence cognizable under Rule 56 to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 324.
A genuine issue of material fact exists if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1996). The substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. Material facts are not genuinely disputed when a rational trier of fact could not find for the nonmoving party upon a review of the record taken as a whole. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 2014). "[U]nsubstantiated assertions," "conclusory allegations," and merely colorable factual bases are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50; Hopper v. Frank, 16 F.3d 92, 97 (5th Cir. 1994). In ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court may not resolve credibility issues or weigh evidence. See Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (5th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, a court must assess the evidence, review the facts, and draw any appropriate inferences based on the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. See Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656(2014); Daniels v. City of Arlington, 246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2001). Yet, a court only draws reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant "when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts." Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)).
After the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute, the nonmovant must articulate specific facts and point to supporting, competent evidence that may be presented in a form admissible at trial. See Lynch Props., Inc. v. Potomac Ins. Co. of Ill., 140 F.3d 622, 625 (5th Cir. 1998); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (c)(2). Such facts must create more than "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. When the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial on the dispositive issue, the moving party may simply point to insufficient admissible evidence to establish an essential element of the nonmovant's claim in order to satisfy its summary judgment burden. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-25; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(B). Unless there is a genuine issue for trial that could support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant, summary judgment must be granted. See Little, 37 F.3d at 1075-76.
Section 9:2800.6 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes establishes the burden of proof in claims against merchants and provides in pertinent part:
Subsection B of § 2800.6 is applicable when a customer falls on a merchant's property. Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 774 So. 2d 84, 90 (La. 2000) (citing Smith v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., 754 So. 2d 209 (La. 1999)). Under the statute, a plaintiff demonstrates constructive notice when "the claimant has proven that the condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care." La. R.S. 9:2800.6(C)(1). "A claimant may prove constructive notice either by submitting direct evidence of how long the condition existed, or by putting forth circumstantial evidence that demonstrates the condition existed for a sufficient period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant exercised reasonable care." Perdomo de Lao v. Sam's Club, 2020 WL 4432280, at *2 (E.D. La. July 31, 2020) (). The Louisiana Supreme Court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial