A simple trip to the grocery store in Bogalusa turned into a multi-year legal battle over a “chicken blood” spill. The case of Jackson-Silvan v. Travis’s Grocery & Market serves as a stark reminder for New Orleans and Washington Parish residents: in Louisiana, merely being injured on a merchant’s property is not enough to secure a settlement. You must prove that the store had time to fix the problem.
The Incident: A Sudden Hazard at the Checkout Line
Anyone who has purchased chicken from a grocery store knows that for some reason the packing always seems to leak. But what happens if that leakage occurs in a grocery store and you slip on it and hurt your back, is the grocery store responsible? The following case out of Washington Parish Louisiana clarifies the standards used by courts when addressing that question.
On July 5, 2011, Sylvia Jackson-Silvan visited Travis’s Grocery & Market on Derbigny Street in Bogalusa, Louisiana. While waiting in line in the check-out aisle, she slipped on “blood drippings from chicken” that had pooled on the floor. Mrs. Silvan was helped up by store employees, who quickly mopped up the liquid, before leaving the premises without further assistance.
Mrs. Silvan and her husband, James Silvan, filed a lawsuit the following February, arguing that Travis’s Market was “strictly liable for allowing dangerous conditions to exist in the store, which posed an unreasonable risk of harm and caused injury to Mrs. Silvan.” The Silvans then filed a motion for summary judgment, stating there was no material issue of fact to be decided at trial. No memorandum, exhibit, or statement of fact accompanied the motion.
Travis’s Market filed its own motion for summary judgment, which was accompanied by a memorandum and numerous exhibits, stating that the essential elements of the Silvans’ claim could not be supported. A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine factual dispute. Dickerson v. Piccadilly Restaurants, Inc..
After the district court for the Parish of Washington dismissed the Silvans’ claim and granted summary judgment for Travis’s Market, the Silvans appealed. Reviewing the case de novo, the First Circuit Court of Appeal first reiterated the plaintiff’s burden in a slip-and-fall negligence claim. Essentially, the plaintiff must prove three elements: 1) the condition which caused injury to the plaintiff presented an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm, 2) the defendant either created or had knowledge of the condition, and 3) the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. (See La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.6(B).)
Next, the court examined the evidence submitted with the parties’ motions for summary judgment in the trial court, as well as the additional materials submitted on appeal. Included was the deposition of Travis Thomas, the owner and manager of Travis’s Market. Mr. Thomas explained how his store often purchased chicken pieces in bulk to parcel out into smaller packages in-store. The chicken is kept on ice to ensure freshness, and from time to time ice or ice melt makes its way onto the store’s floor. Store employees, Mr. Thomas explained, routinely inspect for wet floor conditions and are expected to mop up any moisture immediately. The affidavit of the cashier on duty at the time of the incident stated that the customer in line ahead of Mrs. Silvan purchased “[chicken] leg quarters as well as a shopping basket full of other groceries.”
The Turning Point: What the Security Camera Revealed
The court also reviewed security camera footage that captured Mrs. Silvan’s fall. Accordingly, it found that the liquid Mrs. Silvan slipped on was leaked by the contents of the groceries purchased by the customer ahead of her in line, and not the result of a store employee’s conduct.
The outcome of the case was determined not by testimony, but by objective evidence. Surveillance footage captured the moments leading up to the fall. It revealed that the liquid had leaked from the groceries of the customer directly ahead of Mrs. Silvan in line.
Because the spill occurred only moments before the accident, the court had to decide if the store had a legal opportunity to intervene.
Since the spill was the fault of a customer over whom the store had no control, and occurred only moments before Mrs. Silvan’s fall, the condition was not foreseeable and Travis’s had no notice. Further, the court held that Travis’s exercised reasonable care by requiring its employees to be on the lookout for wet floor conditions and responding quickly with a mop when needed. Agreeing with the judgment below, the court therefore concluded “the Silvans’ evidence of the store practices does not prove any of the elements of [Louisiana’s slip-and-fall statute].”
The Legal Standard: Constructive Notice under R.S. 9:2800.6
Under the Louisiana Merchant Liability Act, a plaintiff must prove “Constructive Notice”—meaning the hazard existed for such a length of time that the merchant should have discovered it.
In this Bogalusa case, the First Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the store because:
- No Actual Notice: No employee was aware of the spill yet.
- No Constructive Notice: The spill happened so quickly (moments before) that the store could not reasonably have been expected to find and mop it.
- Reasonable Care: The store proved that employees were trained to be on constant lookout for spills, satisfying their legal duty.
Aside from the useful information about the burden of proof in slip-and-fall cases, it’s worth noting that the Silvans’ did not submit any supporting materials with the motion for summary judgement in the trial court. Although it seems unlikely that this case would have turned out differently had the motion been better supported this fact offers a reminder of the importance of properly supporting motions.
The Lesson: Why Immediate Investigation is Vital
This case illustrates the “Momentary Spill” rule. If a customer creates a hazard and you fall seconds later, the store is often shielded from liability. To win these cases, your attorney must prove a “Temporal Element”—that the spill sat there long enough to be a sign of negligence.
The Silvan case failed because the ‘Temporal Element’ was missing. To see how we use experts and video analysis to prove a merchant had time to act, explore our Louisiana Slip and Fall Litigation Process & Case Studies hub.
Additional Berniard Law Firm Blog Post On Slip and Fall Liability: Summary Judgment Tripping Case from Baton Rouge Illustrates Court Complexities