When New Orleans residents visit a casino in Lake Charles or the Gulf Coast, they expect a safe environment. While most businesses maintain high standards, a single error in “remedial action”—like mopping—can lead to life-altering injuries. A significant ruling from the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal highlights a critical lesson: simply putting up a sign does not always satisfy a merchant’s duty of care.
The Incident: A 1-Foot Spill and a 10-Foot Danger Zone
The case began at a Lake Charles casino buffet where an employee discovered a small butter spill. Following protocol, the employee mopped the area and placed a “Wet Floor” sign. However, minutes later, a patron slipped, suffering a cracked patella and a torn meniscus.
The trial court awarded over $20,000, but the casino appealed, arguing they had fulfilled their duty by placing the warning sign.
Applying the Louisiana Merchant Liability Act (La. R.S. 9:2800.6)
To understand why the casino lost, we must look at La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Under this statute, an injured plaintiff must prove three strict elements:
- Unreasonable Risk: The condition created a foreseeable risk of harm.
- Notice: The merchant created the condition or had actual/constructive notice.
- Failure of Reasonable Care: The merchant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the fall.
The appellate review of this case illustrates how negligence is analyzed in a slip-and-fall case. The first step in reviewing such cases is to turn to the relevant statutory language. Here, the Louisiana Merchant Liability Act applies. This law establishes a merchant’s duty to maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition. Additionally, the Act lays out the elements a plaintiff must prove to succeed on such a claim.
First, a plaintiff must show that he was legally on the premises. In most cases, this element is easily satisfied as business by their nature invite the public onto their premises. Second, a plaintiff must prove that the condition of the premises created an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable. At a restaurant, for example, it is foreseeable that liquid will be spilled and that they pose a risk to patrons.
Third, it must be shown that the merchant created or had constructive notice of the condition. This element can be satisfied by proving that an employee created the condition or by establishing that an employee had been told of the dangerous condition.
Lastly, a plaintiff must establish that the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. This includes failing to clean up the spill, failing to put patrons on notice of the condition, and completely ignoring the situation.
When “Reasonable Care” Falls Short
The court in the Lake Charles casino case found all of these elements to be satisfied. The casino employee created and was well aware of the wet floor and its dangers (he put up a wet floor sign). Additionally, the court found that the casino failed to exercise reasonable care because, though the butter spill was only over a one foot area, the floor was mopped in an area measuring between five and ten feet. Therefore, the wet floor sign was inadequate considering the size of the danger and was not reasonable care in providing patrons with appropriate notice of the risk.
The appellate court’s analysis focused on the third prong: Reasonable Care. Evidence showed that while the butter spill was only one foot wide, the employee mopped an area between five and ten feet wide. Because only one sign was placed near the original spill, the court found the warning was inadequate for the total size of the wet area. This serves as a vital precedent: the warning must be commensurate with the size of the hazard.
Comparative Fault: The Impact of Alcohol on Your Recovery
In negligence cases courts also look to comparative negligence. Under this legal theory, courts can allocate damages in accordance with the allocation of fault. This means that the plaintiff’s recovery can be reduced in proportion to his own responsibility for the accident. In the Lake Charles casino case, for example, the plaintiff had been drinking prior to his fall. The court saw this as an impairment of the plaintiff’s ability to ascertain the risk of a wet floor and therefore found him 20% responsible for the accident. His award was reduced correspondingly.
The court addressed Comparative Fault (La. C.C. Art. 2323). Because the plaintiff had been drinking, the court determined his ability to perceive the risk was impaired.
- The Result: The plaintiff was found 20% at fault.
- The Math: His total damages were reduced by 20%.
This illustrates why having an attorney who can minimize “allocated fault” is essential to protecting the value of your claim.
Slip-and-fall cases happen more often than business patrons care to think. The battle over negligence damages can be brutal, with abundant finger-pointing for the blame. A competent attorney can fight to minimize or eliminate allocated fault. Yet, because of the complexities involved, these issues are best suited for an attorney experienced in negligence claims. If you are involved in a slip-and-fall incident do not hesitate to contact the Berniard Law Firm.
This casino case is just one example of how a single piece of evidence can change a verdict. To see how these cases move from the initial fall to a final appellate ruling, visit our Louisiana Slip and Fall Litigation Process & Case Studies hub. Winning a judgment like this requires a deep understanding of the court system.