Case Name: Vera Jenkins MILLER and Ivy Lea Miller v. Ralph SMITH, d/b/a Skinneys and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1981-07-02
Citations: 402 So. 2d 688
Docket Number: No. 81-C-0079
Parties: Vera Jenkins MILLER and Ivy Lea Miller v. Ralph SMITH, d/b/a Skinneys and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company.
Judges: DENNIS, J., dissents with reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 402
Pages: 688–690

Head Matter:
Vera Jenkins MILLER and Ivy Lea Miller v. Ralph SMITH, d/b/a Skinneys and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company.
No. 81-C-0079.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
July 2, 1981.
Dissenting Opinion Aug. 21, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1981.
David W. Robinson, Due, Dodson, deGra-velles, Robinson & Caskey, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-applicants.
Iddo Pittman, Jr., Pittman & Matheny, Hammond, for defendants-respondents.

Opinion:
DIXON, Chief Justice.
Plaintiffs were granted judgment in the trial court for personal injuries suffered by Mrs. Miller when she slipped and fell on the dance floor at defendant's restaurant and lounge. The Court of Appeal reversed. Miller v. Smith, 391 So.2d 1263 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1980). We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Our attention was attracted to the case because the Court of Appeal noted that the reasons for judgment assigned by the trial judge were actually prepared by plaintiffs' lawyer — a practice sometimes employed by busy trial judges.
The trial judge found that wax for the dance floor was not applied "in a safe manner" and was accumulated in a "dangerous excessive quantity" in the area where Mrs. Miller fell.
The evidence was properly analyzed in the Court of Appeal opinion. Mrs. Miller saw the bartender apply the wax just before the music started, but neither she nor any other person noted the manner of application on that evening. The cause of Mrs. Miller's fall is not clearly established. She and her husband danced the first number and completed it in spite of noticing that it was "unusually slippery." Returning to their table, Mr. Miller attempted to alert Mrs. Miller to a shadow on the floor which he suspected was wax; she noted a "shadow of something a little dark," but not in time to prevent her falling.
There was, however, no other evidence of any foreign substance, wax or otherwise, on the floor where Mrs. Miller fell. There was testimony from other witnesses that the dance floor was slick on the night of the fall, but the dancing continued into the night with no complaints from the dancers that the floor was too slippery.
Not only does the proof fall short of establishing that Mrs. Miller fell because of some foreign substance on the floor, but it is also short of establishing that the floor was defective or dangerously slippery. Dance floors need to be smooth, and perhaps even "slippery" enough for shoes to slide easily on the floor; but the record does not establish that this floor was unreasonably slick for the purpose for which it was designed and used.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed at relators' cost.
DENNIS, J., dissents with reasons.
LEMMON, J., dissents and will assign reasons.'
. Earlier Court of Appeal cases involving falls on dance floors indicate that plaintiffs have recovered where they demonstrated the presence of a foreign substance on the floor, and testimony revealed that the substance's presence was reported to an employee of defendant before plaintiff slipped. See Rosensweig v. The Travelers Insurance Co., 333 So.2d 334 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1976) and Roberts v. Courville, 162 So.2d 750 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1964). On the other hand, a plaintiff who alleged that a dance floor was dangerously slippery was denied re covery where a court found that the defendant kept the floors in reasonably safe condition and was not told that the floor was excessively waxed. See Champagne v. Harahan Lions Club, Inc., 243 So.2d 292 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1971).