Ms. Watts initially filed a petition claiming she slipped and fell on a wet floor within the Golden Nugget casino lobby. However, during her deposition, she clarified that the incident occurred on the boardwalk outside the casino while it was raining. Ms. Watts attributed her fall to the wet conditions and alleged injuries to her right shoulder, neck, and back.
Golden Nugget filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the accident took place outside the casino, on the boardwalk, during rainy conditions. They contended that Ms. Watts could not establish that the walkway posed a hazard or that Golden Nugget’s negligence contributed to the incident. They supported their motion with evidence, including Ms. Watts’ deposition transcript, surveillance video of the incident, and an affidavit from their Risk Manager confirming the rainy weather and lack of prior complaints about the boardwalk.
Ms. Watts opposed the motion, presenting photographs of her alleged injuries, the boardwalk, and the shoes she wore during the incident. She argued that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the safety of the boardwalk, particularly the space between the boards, which could have posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
The trial court initially expressed a leaning toward granting Golden Nugget’s motion for summary judgment. However, due to concerns about potential delays and the need to reschedule the trial if the decision were reversed on appeal, the court ultimately denied the motion.
Golden Nugget sought supervisory review of the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeal, in its de novo review, focused on the admissibility of the photographs presented by Ms. Watts. It noted that these photographs were undated, unauthenticated, and unverified, making them inadmissible as evidence.
The court emphasized that the photographs were the sole basis for the trial court’s finding of a genuine issue of material fact. Without these photographs, Ms. Watts failed to present any evidence demonstrating a hazardous condition or Golden Nugget’s negligence.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Golden Nugget. Ms. Watts’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, and she was assessed all costs associated with the proceedings.
This case underscores the importance of adhering to evidentiary rules in summary judgment proceedings. The inadmissibility of Ms. Watts’ photographs proved pivotal in the Court of Appeal’s decision. It also serves as a reminder that slip and fall cases hinge on demonstrating a property owner’s negligence or the existence of a hazardous condition, particularly in outdoor settings where weather conditions can play a role.
Additional Sources: CAROLYN A. WATTS VERSUS GOLDEN NUGGET LAKE CHARLES, LLC
Written by Berniard Law Firm
Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Slip and Fall Lawsuits; Slipping in Stores: When Does the Store’s Responsibility Kick In? and Louisiana Court Reverses Slip-and-Fall Judgment Against Hospital, Highlighting “Reasonable Care” Standard