Articles Tagged with merchant liability

dollar_bank_note_money-1024x768This case examines the requirements for proving merchant liability in slip and fall cases, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the burden of proof.

Case Background

Lamarr Pierite sued Dollar General, alleging he slipped and fell in a liquid substance at their store, causing injuries. After a trial, the court found Dollar General liable and awarded Mr. Pierite $30,000 in general damages plus other costs. Dollar General appealed the judgment.

wine_grocery_store_supermarket-1024x768The following case dives into the world of “slip and fall” lawsuits in Louisiana, where the law sets specific requirements for holding merchants liable for injuries on their premises.

Case Background

Gwendolyn Thibodeaux fell while shopping at a Super 1 Foods store in Lafayette. Although the fall was captured on video, the cause was not immediately clear. Ms. Thibodeaux sued Super 1, alleging they were negligent in keeping their floors safe. After a trial, the court ruled in favor of Super 1, finding that Ms. Thibodeaux failed to prove the store’s liability under Louisiana law.

vidar-nordli-mathisen-ZZvsfoidr5g-unsplash-1024x729In a recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case, Schroeder v. Hanover Insurance Company, et al., the court delved into the complexities of slip-and-fall cases and the crucial role of adequate warnings in determining a business’s liability. This decision highlights the importance of understanding merchant liability laws in Louisiana and how the presence of warning signs can significantly impact a personal injury claim.

Sybil Schroeder slipped and fell in the restroom of a travel plaza, sustaining injuries. She sued the travel plaza and its insurer, claiming they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment. However, she admitted in her deposition that she had noticed two “wet floor” signs before entering the restroom.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the presence of these signs demonstrated they had exercised reasonable care. The trial court initially denied the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed this decision.

Contact Information