Background
Sylvia Goins asserted claims against M & L Industries, L.L.C. arising from a fall on the company’s premises. She alleged that a defective condition caused the accident.
M & L moved for summary judgment. The 32nd Judicial District Court in Terrebonne Parish denied the motion on December 9, 2025, and M & L sought supervisory review from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the supervisory writ and reversed the denial of summary judgment. It explained that a merchant-liability plaintiff must establish, among other elements, an unreasonably dangerous and reasonably foreseeable condition, the merchant’s creation of or actual or constructive notice of that condition, and a failure to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff must also prove that a defect existed and caused the damages; the defect cannot be inferred solely from the accident.
The court held that Goins failed to identify precisely what condition caused her fall or explain how that condition constituted a defect. Because she could not establish that essential element, the court granted M & L’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed her claims with prejudice. Theriot, J., concurred, while Fields, J., dissented and would have denied the writ.
Key Takeaways
- A premises-liability plaintiff must identify the specific condition alleged to have caused the fall.
- The occurrence of an accident, standing alone, does not permit an inference that a defect existed.
- Failure to establish any required element of a merchant-liability claim warrants summary judgment against the claimant.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the evidentiary burden facing plaintiffs in Louisiana merchant slip-and-fall cases. General allegations that some unidentified defect caused a fall are insufficient to survive summary judgment.
For merchants, the ruling supports early dismissal when the plaintiff cannot identify a particular hazardous condition and connect that condition to the accident.