Neal v. Players Lake Charles, LLC
787 So. 2d. 1213, 2001 WL 615219 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mere appearance of a floor as shiny or glossy, without additional evidence of a foreign substance or actual slickness, is insufficient to prove that the floor presents an unreasonable risk of harm in a slip-and-fall case.
Facts:
- Victoria Neal, an eighty-four-year-old woman, was walking through a casino owned by Players Lake Charles, LLC.
- While walking, Ms. Neal fell and fractured her left wrist.
- The casino floor was made of concrete and was treated every two weeks with a sealer/finisher product called 'Armorkote'.
- The purpose of Armorkote was to seal the floor and produce a highly glossy, polished, and shiny appearance.
- The technical data sheet for Armorkote, provided by its supplier, classified the product as 'slip resisting' according to Underwriter's Laboratory standards.
- Both Victoria and John Neal testified that the floor looked slick and highly polished, but they saw no foreign substance on it.
- The Neals had visited the casino between thirty-five and fifty times prior to the accident without any issue.
- A security guard who responded to the incident confirmed that no foreign substances were present on the floor where Ms. Neal fell.
Procedural Posture:
- Victoria and John Neal (plaintiffs) sued Players Lake Charles, LLC and its insurer (defendants) in a Louisiana trial court for injuries sustained in a fall.
- The trial court found in favor of the Neals, concluding the floor was unreasonably dangerous after taking judicial notice of certain facts regarding sealant buildup.
- The trial court awarded the Neals $22,987.49 in damages.
- Players Lake Charles, LLC (defendant/appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, with the Neals as plaintiffs/appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a floor surface create an unreasonable risk of harm sufficient to establish merchant liability simply because it has a shiny and glossy appearance, absent any evidence of a foreign substance or actual slickness?
Opinions:
Majority - Gremillion, Judge
No, a floor surface does not create an unreasonable risk of harm simply because it has a shiny and glossy appearance. The plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof under La.R.S. 9:2800.6, which requires showing that the condition of the floor presented an unreasonable risk of harm. The court found that the Neals only proved that the floor had a shiny appearance, which was the intended effect of the sealant product used. There was no evidence presented to suggest the floor was actually slick, such as testimony from someone who had touched it or expert analysis. Furthermore, the court held that the trial court erred by taking judicial notice that the sealant must have 'built up' over time, as this was a disputed technical fact not subject to judicial notice under La.Code Evid. art. 201(B), rather than a matter of common knowledge.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard for plaintiffs in Louisiana slip-and-fall cases, establishing that subjective appearance alone is not sufficient to prove a hazardous condition. It effectively raises the burden of proof, requiring plaintiffs to provide objective evidence of a defect, such as friction testing, expert testimony on the flooring material, or the presence of a foreign substance. The ruling reinforces that a business is not liable merely for maintaining a clean and polished floor as intended. The case also serves as a strong reminder of the narrow scope of judicial notice, limiting it to facts that are either common knowledge or readily verifiable from indisputable sources, not technical speculation.
