* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30579 

Summary Calendar

ELLODIE M BOYD

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

WAL-MART STORES INC

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:06-CV-3176

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ellodie M. Boyd sued Wal-Mart after she slipped and fell in one of its

stores. Wal-Mart filed for summary judgment, which the district court granted.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

1. After shopping in Wal-Mart, Boyd was leaving the store with her

daughter when she slipped and fell in a puddle of clear liquid that

had accumulated somewhere between the customer-service area of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 15, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30579 

Summary Calendar

1 Machinchick v. PB Power, Inc., 398 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir. 2005). 

2 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). 

3

Id. (citing FED. R. CIV. PROC. 56(c)).

4 LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 9:2800.6(B)(2) (2007). 

2

the store and the front exit. As a result of her fall, Boyd badly

injured her right knee. 

Boyd filed suit in Louisiana state court, alleging that WalMart’s negligence had caused her injury. Wal-Mart removed the

case to federal court and filed for summary judgment. The district

court granted the motion and Boyd appealed.

2. We review grants of summary judgment applying the same legal

standard as the district court.1 As the Supreme Court has

explained, summary judgmentis proper when the non-moving party

cannot “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an

element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will

bear the burden of proof at trial.”2In such situations, the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3

3. Here, Boyd filed suit under Louisiana law, which places the burden

on plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases to prove, among other things,that

“[t]he merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice

of the condition” that caused the fall.4

In an attemptto meet her burden, Boyd argues that Wal-Mart

had constructive notice of the liquid on its floor. To prove that WalMart had such notice, Boyd must show that the liquid was on the

floor “for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if
No. 07-30579 

Summary Calendar

5 See id. § 9:2800.6(C)(1).

6 699 So. 2d 1081, 1084–85 (La. 1997); see also O’Brien v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 720 So.

2d 1263, 1266–67 (La. Ct. App. 1998) (holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient

evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff “did not present any evidence to

establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time”). 

3

[Wal-Mart] had exercised reasonable care.”5In White v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that because

the constructive-notice requirement includes a temporal

element—“for such a period of time”—the plaintiff carries a burden

beyond showing that the merchant acted unreasonably:

A claimant who simply shows that the condition

existed, without an additional showing that the

condition existed for some time before the fall has

not carried the burden of proving constructive notice

. . . . Though the time period need not be specific in

minutes or hours, constructive notice requires that

the claimant prove the condition existed for some

time period prior to the fall.6

Boyd has not presented any evidence concerning the length of

time the liquid was on the floor. Boyd instead argues that because

Wal-Mart has no record of the last time it checked the floors, the

liquid could have been there for hours. But providing evidence that

the liquid was on the floor “for some time period prior to the fall” is

Boyd’s burden, not Wal-Mart’s. Because Boyd did not meet that

burden, the district court properly granted Wal-Mart summary

judgment. 

AFFIRMED.