Premises Liability

Slipping in Stores: When Does the Store’s Responsibility Kick In?

Published on: September 5, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-victoria-strelka_ph-128225472-10612266-scaled We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case of Barton v. Walmart highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.

In 2016, Douglas Barton was shopping at a Walmart store in Alexandria, Louisiana, during a rainy day. As he entered the store, he slipped on a wet spot on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. He sued Walmart, claiming they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment for their customers.

Walmart denied liability, arguing that they had no knowledge of the wet spot and that it likely occurred moments before Barton entered the store due to the wind blowing rain inside. They presented evidence of an inspection conducted earlier that morning, which had not noted any hazards.

Hotel Not Liable for Pool Injury: Understanding Premises Liability and the “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Doctrine in Louisiana

Published on: August 31, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-markusspiske-97047-scaled A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal ruling underscores the complexities of premises liability cases and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving negligence when accidents occur on someone else’s property. The case, Krueger v. La Quinta Inn & Suites, involved a guest who suffered a foot injury due to broken glass in the hotel pool. While the injury was unfortunate, the court ultimately sided with the hotel, highlighting the necessity of establishing the property owner’s knowledge of the hazard.

Casey Krueger and his family were staying at a La Quinta Inn & Suites in Baton Rouge when he cut his foot on broken glass in the pool. Although the jury acknowledged there was a defect on the premises, they found the hotel not liable because they didn’t have actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.

Krueger appealed, arguing that the hotel should have known about the broken glass and that the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” should apply, allowing negligence to be inferred from the circumstances of the injury.

When a Slip and Fall Isn’t Just an Accident: Understanding Merchant Liability

Published on: August 21, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-skitterphoto-4341-scaled We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent case of Foto v. Rouse’s Enterprises, LLC, highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.

In 2013, Daisy Foto was shopping at a Rouse’s store in Louisiana. She slipped on a clear liquid on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. Foto sued Rouse’s, claiming they were responsible for her injuries because they either created the hazardous condition, knew about it, or should have known about it.

Rouse’s argued they had no liability because Foto couldn’t prove they created the spill, knew about it beforehand, or that it had been there long enough for them to reasonably discover and clean it up. They presented evidence of a store inspection conducted earlier that morning, showing no hazards were noted.

Injured Shreveport Worker’s Claim Saved from Dismissal on Summary Judgment in Case Involving an Allegedly Open and Obvious Hazard

Published on: August 19, 2024 | By Berniard Law Firm

pexels-frans-van-heerden-201846-635096-scaled David Cox delivered four pallets of shirk-wrapped material for his employer, Southwestern Motor Transport, in June 2012. The delivery location was the Baker Distributing Company warehouse in Shreveport, Louisiana. Baker’s delivery dock did not have a dock plate. A dock plate is a metal bridge connecting a truck’s back to the loading dock. There is an empty space between the back of the truck and the loading dock without a dock plate. In addition, Cox found that the loading dock was cluttered with several objects. Due to this clutter, Cox could not use a forklift to unload the truck.

Working alone, Cox managed to get two pallets off the truck with a pallet jack but then used a dolly for the last two pallets. While attempting to get the previous pallet off the truck, Cox’s foot became wedged between the dock and the truck, causing him to fall on his back. Cox filed a lawsuit as a result of being injured.

In the lawsuit Cox alleged that this fall caused him to have permanent injuries that made him disabled. The injury resulted in Cox receiving worker’s compensation benefits. Cox filed a lawsuit against Baker, arguing that the lack of a working dock plate made the dock unreasonably dangerous, that the lack of a dock plate was not easily visible to parties making deliveries to the warehouse, and that Baker had a duty to provide a safe entrance for parties unloading at the dock.