Naomi Anthony v. J-H-J Inc. D/B/A Shoppers Value Foods ( 2023 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2023 CA 0559
WK 4r
1? NAOMIE ANTHONY
t VERSUS
J, INC., D/ B/ A SHOPPERS VALUE FOODS
V Judgment Rendered: NOV 2 9 2023
Appealed from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Suit Number C709308
Honorable Donald R. Johnson, Presiding
Adrejia L. A. Boutte' Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Pride J. Doran Naomie Anthony
Quincy L. Cawthorne
Edward C. James, II
Alexis Davis Durio
Opelousas, LA
Adrian P. Smith
Baton Rouge, LA
Nicholas J. Zeringue Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
A. Catharina Vastbinder J -H -J, Inc. D/ B/ A Shopper' s Value
Thibodaux, LA Foods
Michael J. Remondet, Jr. Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Allison M. Ackal Argonaut Great Central Insurance
Lafayette, LA Company
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.
GUIDRY, C.J.
Plaintiff, Naomie Anthony, appeals from a trial court judgment granting
summary judgment in favor of defendants, J -H -J, Inc. d/ b/ a Shopper' s Value Foods
Shopper' s Value) and Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company, and dismissing
her slip and fall suit. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 3, 2020, Anthony was a patron at Shopper' s Value located on Plank
Road, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. While proceeding down an aisle in the store at
approximately 7: 20 p.m., Anthony slipped on a substance later identified as a broken
egg and fell, causing injury. Anthony thereafter filed a petition for damages, naming
Shopper' s Value and its insurer, Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company, as
defendants.
After answering Anthony' s petition, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, asserting that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to
liability because Anthony cannot produce any positive evidence establishing that a
hazardous condition, i.e., the broken egg, pre- existed the incident nor that Shopper' s
Value created the condition or had constructive notice of the condition.
Additionally, defendants asserted that Anthony cannot meet her burden of otherwise
proving that Shopper' s Value failed to exercise reasonable care. In support of their
motion, defendants submitted a copy of Anthony' s deposition, photographs, a store
diagram, safety inspection logs, customer complaint form, and the affidavit of
Kelvin Smith, co -manager of Shopper' s Value on the date of the incident. Anthony
opposed the motion for summary judgment by submitting a memorandum and
referencing evidence filed by defendants in support of their motion, but she did not
offer any evidence in opposition to defendants' motion.
2
Following a hearing on defendants' motion, the trial court signed a judgment
granting summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissing Anthony' s claims
against them with prejudice. Anthony now appeals from the trial court' s judgment. I
STANDARD OF REVIEW
After an opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment
shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents shove that
there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. La. C.C. P. art. 966( A)(3). An issue is genuine if reasonable
persons could disagree. If on the state of the evidence, reasonable persons could
reach only one conclusion, there is no need for a trial on that issue. Methvien v. Our
Lady of the Lake Hospital, 22- 0398, p. 4 (La. App. 1 st Cir. 1114122), 354 So. 3d 720,
723.
The Code of Civil Procedure places the burden of proof on the party filing a
motion for summary judgment. La. C. C. P. art. 966(D)( 1). At the time of the hearing
on defendants' motion for summary judgment,2 Article 966( A)(4) provided that the
mover can meet its burden by filing supporting documentary evidence consisting of
pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, certified
medical records, written stipulations, and admissions with its motion for summary
judgment. The mover' s supporting documents must prove the essential facts
necessary to carry the mover' s burden. See La. C. C. P. art. 966( A)(3).
r The trial court signed a judgment on December 2, 2022, granting summary judgment in favor of
defendants and from which Anthony filed a motion for appeal. However, because the judgment
lacked appropriate decretal language indicating that the judgment resolved all issues between the
parties or all of plaintiff' s claims, this court issued an interim order on October 12, 2023,
remanding the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of requesting the trial court to sign
an amended judgment in accordance with La. C. C. P. art. 1951 that specifically indicates if any or
all of plaintiff' s claims against defendants are dismissed and complies with La. C. C. P. art. 1918.
The record was subsequently supplemented with a judgment, signed on October 26, 2023, granting
summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissing Anthony' s claims against them with
prejudice.
z Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966 was subsequently amended by 2023 La. Acts No.
317, § 1, effective August 1, 2023.
3
Once the mover properly establishes the material facts by its supporting
documents, the mover does not have to negate all of the essential elements of the
adverse party' s claims, actions, or defenses if he will not bear the burden of proof at
trial. La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 1); Methvien, 22- 0398 at p. 5, 354 So. 3d at 723.
Rather, the mover must point out to the court that there is an absence of factual
support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party' s claim, action, or
defense. La. C.C. P. art. 966( D)( 1).
The burden then shifts to the non- moving party
to produce factual support, through the use of proper documentary evidence attached
to its motion, which establishes the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or
that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C. C. P. art.
966( D)( 1);
see also La. C. C. P. art. 966, comments -2015, comment 0). If the non-
moving party fails to produce sufficient factual support in its opposition which
proves the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, Article 966( D)( 1) mandates
the granting of the motion for summary judgment. White v. Herbert, 22- 1333, p. 5
La. App. 1 st Cir. 6/ 2/ 23), 369 So. 3d 898, 902.
In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts
review evidence de nova under the same criteria that govern the trial court' s
consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Succession of Hickman
v. State through Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University Agricultural and
Mechanical College, 16- 1069, p. 5 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 4/ 12/ 17), 217 So. 3d 1240,
1244.
DISCUSSION
Under the Merchant Liability Statute, La. R.S. 9: 2800. 6, a merchant owes a
duty to persons who use its premises to exercise reasonable care to keep the 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. La. R.S. 9: 2800.6(A). In a negligence claim
4
against a merchant for damages because of a fall due to a condition existing on the
merchant' s premises, a claimant shall have the burden of proving, in addition to all
other elements of his cause of action, that: ( 1) the condition presented an
unreasonable risk of harm to the claimant and that risk of harm was reasonably
foreseeable; ( 2) the merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of
the condition that caused the damage, prior to the occurrence; and ( 3) the merchant
failed to exercise reasonable care. La. R.S. 9: 2800.6( B). Under this heavy burden
of proof, if any one of these elements cannot be established, the claimant' s entire
action will fail. Nash v. Rouse' s Enterprises, LLC,
15- 1101, pp. 3- 4 ( La. App. 1st
Cir. 2126116), 191 So. 3d 599, 601.
In seeking summary judgment, defendants asserted that in addition to not
being able to prove the existence of a hazardous condition or that Shopper' s Value
failed to exercise reasonable care, Anthony cannot prove that Shopper' s Value either
created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of the condition causing
her injury. Constructive notice means 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). Though there is no bright
line time period, a claimant must make a positive showing that the hazardous
condition existed for some period of time before the fall and that such time was
sufficient to place the merchant on notice of its existence. See White v. Wal- Mart
StoreesInc., 97- 0393, p. 4 ( La. 919197), 699 So. 2d 1081, 1084. Mere speculation or
suggestion is not enough to meet the stringent burden imposed upon a plaintiff by
La. R.S. 9: 2800.6. Adams on Behalf of D.K. v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. Store # 542,
18- 1706, p. 5 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 27/ 19), 286 So. 3d 452, 455. Whether the period
of time is sufficiently lengthy that a merchant should have discovered the condition
is necessarily a fact question; however, there remains the prerequisite showing of
some time period. A claimant who simply shows that the condition existed without
5
an additional showing that the condition existed for some time before the fall has not
carried the burden of proving constructive notice as mandated by the statute. Though
the time period need not be specific in minutes or hours, constructive notice requires
that the claimant prove the condition existed for some time period prior to the fall.
White, 97- 0393 at pp. 4- 5, 699 So. 2d at 1084- 85.
In support of their motion, defendants submitted a copy of Anthony' s
deposition, a store diagram,
photographs,
safety inspection logs, a customer
complaint form, and the affidavit of Kelvin Smith, co -manager of Shopper' s Value
on the date of the incident. In her deposition, Anthony stated that she was in the
store for approximately five minutes before her fall. According to Anthony, she
walked in the store behind three women and followed them through the store, toward
the back of the store, when she slipped on a broken egg. Anthony stated that she did
not see anything on the floor prior to her fall. Furthermore, Anthony stated that she
did not see any store employees nearby when she fell and had no reason to believe
that any store employee either left a broken egg on the floor or otherwise knew about
a hazard on the floor before she fell. She further stated that she did not see any other
patrons in the area before the incident that could have dropped the egg on the floor.
Anthony admitted that she had no idea how the egg came to be on the floor and had
no way to show how long it was on the floor before she fell.
The safety inspection logs indicate that a safety patrol was conducted of the
entire store, beginning at approximately 6: 45 p.m. that evening, with the area where
Anthony fell having been patrolled between 6: 50 and 6: 53 p.m., and that all stations
were clear of hazards. Furthermore, Smith stated in his affidavit that when he started
his shift that evening at 6: 30 p.m., the security guard had been performing safety
inspections, but when he came on duty, he patrolled the store almost constantly
looking for hazards and did not see any broken egg or other hazardous substance in
the area where Anthony fell. Smith stated that he was told about the fall by another
2
store employee soon after it happened, and when he went to investigate, he saw
broken egg smeared on the floor, apparently from where Anthony had walked
through it. Smith subsequently reviewed store video, which did not show the fall on
camera, but showed the area of the fall minutes before the incident. Smith stated
that from what he could see, two customers were in the area minutes before the fall
and did not appear to avoid any hazard on the floor where Anthony later slipped,
which showed him that the egg was not on the floor at 7: 18 p.m., just two minutes
before Anthony fell.
Anthony did not dispute the evidence contained in the inspection logs nor did
she dispute any of the aforementioned statements from Smith' s affidavit.
Furthermore, Anthony did not produce any positive evidence indicating how the
broken egg came to be on the floor or that the broken egg was on the floor for some
period of time prior to her fall. Therefore, we find Anthony failed to offer any
evidence to support findings that the egg' s presence of the floor preexisted her fall
or that Shopper' s Value had actual or constructive notice of a hazard prior to her fall.
As such, there are no genuine issues of material fact and defendants are entitled to
summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. All costs
of this appeal are assessed to Naomie Anthony.
AFFIRMED.