Court Opinion

ID: 9883011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 00:00:29.870691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:16.549306
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30016         Document: 00516921958             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                FILED
                                                                             October 5, 2023
                                        No. 23-30016
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                 Clerk

   David Thompson,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   D G Louisiana, L.L.C.,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 1:20-CV-1371
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The district court granted summary judgment to Dollar General Lou-
   isiana, L.L.C. in this slip-and-fall case. We affirm.
                                                I.
          Plaintiff David Thompson and his brother entered a Dollar General
   store in Alexandria, Louisiana on June 17, 2019. While there, Thompson’s
   walker became entangled in a small stepstool that was in the pet supplies
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30016      Document: 00516921958           Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/05/2023

                                     No. 23-30016

   aisle. Either in attempting to untangle his walker or a few seconds later,
   Thompson stepped onto another object lying on the floor of the aisle. ROA.
   399–400. He fell, injuring his neck, shoulder, and arm. When Thompson’s
   brother and a bystander heard him fall from a different aisle, they came to
   assist; once there, Thompson’s brother noticed several objects on the floor
   near Thompson, including a dog bone and another unidentified object. ROA.
   438. No one besides Thompson was in the aisle when he entered it or when
   he fell. ROA.403.
          Thompson sued Dollar General in Louisiana state court for negligence
   and strict liability. ROA.17–18. Dollar General, asserting diversity
   jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, removed the suit to federal district court.
   ROA.10–15. Dollar General moved for summary judgment, contending that
   Thompson had failed to meet the evidentiary standards required by the
   Louisiana Merchant Liability Act, LA. R.S. 9:2800.6. ROA.220–21.
          The district court granted Dollar General’s motion. ROA.501–02,
   505. Thompson timely appealed, arguing that he had sufficiently established
   a genuine dispute of material fact and that his claim should therefore have
   survived Dollar General’s motion for summary judgment.
          Our review is de novo. Ezell v. Kansas City S. R.R. Co., 866 F.3d 294,
   297 (5th Cir. 2017). We draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Thompson
   as the non-moving party. See id. at 298. But “all reasonable inferences” still
   require that Thompson establish sufficient facts to support his claim and do
   not allow for “implausible” inferences. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
   Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). To survive a motion for
   summary judgment, Thompson must provide “specific facts showing that
   there is a genuine issue for trial.” Ibid. (emphasis removed); Donaghey v.
   Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992).

                                          2
Case: 23-30016          Document: 00516921958          Page: 3     Date Filed: 10/05/2023

                                        No. 23-30016

                                             II.
          Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Act sets out a plaintiff’s burden of
   proof in slip-and-fall cases. La. R.S. 9:2800.6. As relevant here, the Act
   requires plaintiffs to provide proof that a merchant either (A) created the
   injurious hazard or (B) had constructive notice of it. To meet this burden,
   plaintiffs may show either that the merchant is “directly responsible” for the
   hazard, Ferrant v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., 494 Fed. App’x 458, 462 (2012)
   (per curiam) (citing Ross v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., 98-1036,
   (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/14/99), 734 So. 2d 910, 913; Savoie v. Sw. La. Hosp. Ass’n,
   2003-982, (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/25/04), 866 So. 2d 1078, 1081), or that “the
   condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered
   if the merchant had exercised reasonable care,” La. R.S. 9:2800.6(C)(1);
   see White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393, (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/9/97), 699 So.
   2d 1081, 1084. At the summary judgment stage, Thompson must produce
   evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find in his favor. See
   Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.
          Thompson has not met his burden on either theory of breach. First,
   Thompson presented no evidence that would allow jury to conclude that
   Dollar General created the hazard by leaving the stool on the floor. Instead,
   Thompson points to testimony that Dollar General employees sometimes
   used stools like the one he tripped on.1 ROA.442; 453. That is insufficient to
   create a triable issue of fact that Dollar General was “directly responsible”
   for leaving the specific stool in the specific aisle that caused Thompson’s
   specific injuries.

          _____________________
          1
          For its part, Dollar General has explained that it sells stepstools like the one
   Thompson tripped over; they are not considered stocking equipment.

                                             3
Case: 23-30016      Document: 00516921958           Page: 4     Date Filed: 10/05/2023

                                     No. 23-30016

          Thompson also contends that summary judgment is inappropriate
   because Dollar General failed to present evidence of who left the stool in the
   aisle. But it is not Dollar General’s burden to prove anything; it is
   Thompson’s. And the absence of evidence for the moving party who does
   not have the burden of proof at trial does not foreclose summary judgment.
   See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586 (explaining that the nonmovant “must do
   more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the
   material facts”).
          Second, Thompson failed to create a triable issue of fact on
   constructive notice. The Merchant Liability Act does not require stores to
   exercise anything more than “reasonable care” to discover and correct
   potential hazards. La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B)(3); (C)(1). And the statute requires
   plaintiffs to prove that any hazard “existed for such a period of time” that,
   had the merchant exercised the requisite care, he must have discovered it.
   “There is no bright line time period, but ‘some positive evidence is required
   of how long the condition existed prior to the fall.’” Bagley v. Albertsons, Inc.,
   492 F.3d 328, 331 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Robinson v. Brookshires #26, 33,713,
   p. 5 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/25/00), 769 So. 2d 639, 642).
          Here, however, Thompson has presented no evidence at all regarding
   how long the stool sat in the aisle. Without such evidence, Thompson cannot
   survive summary judgment on constructive notice. See Donaldson v. Sam’s
   East, Inc., No. 22-30189, 2021 WL 4898724, at *3–4 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2021)
   (per curiam).
          Our decision in Bagley is not to the contrary. The plaintiff in that case
   survived summary judgment by producing evidence that the spill was so big
   that it spanned multiple aisles. 492 F.3d at 331. Moreover, Bagley produced
   evidence that the aisle was empty when she entered it and slipped, “implying

                                           4
Case: 23-30016     Document: 00516921958           Page: 5   Date Filed: 10/05/2023

                                    No. 23-30016

   the passage of some time.” Ibid. (quotation omitted). Here, by contrast,
   Thompson has no time evidence. Therefore, Bagley is distinguishable.
          For the foregoing reasons, Thompson failed to create a triable issue
   of fact on claims for which he carries the burden of proof. Therefore, Dollar
   General is entitled to summary judgment.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         5