The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 8th, 2017 decided a case under Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Act (La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B)(2)). Deshotel v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C., U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, March 8, 2017, 16-30643.
Amanda Riggio filed suit against Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C. for injuries sustained from a slip and fall in a Wal-Mart store. Riggio alleged that Wal-Mart negligently maintained its roof, which caused water to leak onto its floors. Wal-Mart filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Riggio could not prove that Wal-Mart created the condition nor that it had actual or constructive notice of the wet floor. The district court granted Wal-Mart’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Riggio appealed.
The key issue before the Fifth Circuit was whether negligent maintenance of a roof can qualify as a “creation” of a hazard under Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Act. To recover under the statute, Riggio had to prove that Wal-Mart either (1) created the hazardous condition or (2) had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Louisiana state courts have held that when a merchant maintains its own floors, the plaintiff is not required to prove it had actual or constructive notice. Wal-Mart acknowledged it maintains its own floors. Thus, the Fifth Circuit focused on whether Wal-Mart “created” the hazardous condition. The Fifth Circuit concluded that a defendant “creates” a hazardous condition when it is “directly responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.” “Direct responsibility” is proven either by evidence that defendant’s employees actually created the hazard, or evidence that defendant was responsible for maintaining the area where the hazardous condition was manifest.
The Fifth Circuit found sufficient evidence that Wal-Mart was responsible for maintaining its roof. First, Wal-Mart paid for repairs to the roof only one (1) month before Riggio’s accident. Second, Wal-Mart paid for a full roof repair after the accident. A reasonable jury could find that Wal-Mart created the hazardous condition (the wet floors) by failing to maintain its roof. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s granting of Wal-Mart’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Deshotel v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C., U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, March 8, 2017, 16-30643.