Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
This 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.
Merchant Liability in Louisiana
Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2800.6 governs merchant liability for slip and falls. To succeed, a plaintiff must prove:
- Unreasonable Risk of Harm: A condition existed that presented an unreasonable risk of harm.
- Merchant’s Knowledge: The merchant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it.
- Failure to Exercise Reasonable Care: The merchant failed to exercise reasonable care.
The Court’s Analysis
The appeals court reviewed the evidence and found that Mr. Pierite failed to meet his burden of proof. Here’s why:
- Lack of Evidence of a Hazard: The video surveillance did not show any liquid on the floor where Mr. Pierite fell. Photographs taken immediately after the incident also did not show any liquid.
- Speculation, Not Evidence: The trial court’s inference that a child with a drink may have spilled something 45 minutes before the fall was considered mere speculation, not positive evidence.
- No Proof of Notice: There was no evidence that Dollar General had actual or constructive notice of any liquid on the floor. The video showed many customers walking through the area without incident before Mr. Pierite’s fall.
The court stressed that the plaintiff must provide positive evidence of a hazardous condition and the merchant’s knowledge of it. Mr. Pierite’s testimony alone was insufficient to meet this burden, especially when contradicted by objective evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence is Key: In slip and fall cases, clear evidence of a hazardous condition is crucial. Video footage, photographs, and witness testimony can all play a role.
- Proving Notice: It’s not enough to show that a condition existed; the plaintiff must also prove that the merchant knew or should have known about it.
- Objective Evidence: Objective evidence, such as video footage and photographs, can be more persuasive than subjective testimony alone.
Outcome
The appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision, finding in favor of Dollar General. This case illustrates the challenges plaintiffs face in proving merchant liability for slip and falls, especially when the evidence of a hazardous condition is weak or non-existent.