Background
Sealesta Selders sued Rouses Enterprises, LLC on behalf of her minor daughter, Madisyn Selders, alleging that Madisyn slipped on liquid near the bakery area of a Baton Rouge grocery store in February 2022. The petition alleged that the fall caused ankle and foot injuries requiring surgery and that no wet-floor signs were present.
After a bench trial, the district court awarded $50,000 in general damages, $40,000 in special damages, and $6,000 in future medical expenses. Rouses appealed, arguing that Selders had not satisfied the requirements for merchant liability under Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2800.6.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit reversed. It held that Selders failed to prove that a liquid or other identifiable condition at Rouses caused Madisyn’s fall. Witnesses did not unequivocally identify liquid on the floor, testimony conflicted about whether Madisyn fell on the floor or a mat, and neither photographs nor incident reports showed a liquid substance. Because the alleged condition could not be identified, Selders could not establish that it presented an unreasonable and reasonably foreseeable risk of harm.
The court also held that Selders failed to prove that Rouses created the condition, had actual or constructive notice of it, or failed to exercise reasonable care. The evidence showed that Rouses used cleaning procedures and hourly inspections, including an inspection less than an hour before the fall. The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s findings were clearly wrong in light of the entire record and reversed the damages judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A merchant-liability claimant must identify the specific condition that caused the fall; evidence that a floor appeared shiny does not by itself establish a hazardous condition.
- Failure to prove any requirement of Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2800.6 is fatal to a merchant slip-and-fall claim.
- Conflicting testimony, photographs showing no liquid, and documented inspections undermined proof of an unreasonable risk, notice, and lack of reasonable care.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an injury occurring on a merchant’s premises does not alone establish liability. Plaintiffs must connect the fall to a specific hazardous condition and prove that the merchant created it or had actual or constructive notice before the accident.
For merchants, documented inspection and cleanup practices can be important evidence against claims of notice and unreasonable care, particularly when the alleged hazard cannot be verified after an incident.