Automated Summary
Key Facts
On January 25, 2024, at approximately 5:20 P.M., Waynoaka Drake fell at a Walmart Supercenter in Pineville, Louisiana, after her feet became entangled in a plastic strap from a box of copy paper. She sustained a broken hip and femur. The case, filed in the 9th Judicial District Court, was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, where Walmart's motion for summary judgment was granted on February 12, 2026. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding Walmart's creation or notice of the hazard, and Drake's motion for sanctions was denied as moot.
Issues
- The court assessed whether Walmart directly created the hazardous condition (plastic strap on the floor) by showing that their employees were responsible for stocking copy paper and thus likely responsible for the plastic's presence, but found insufficient evidence to support this claim.
- The court evaluated whether Walmart had actual or constructive notice of the plastic strap on the floor. Ms. Drake failed to provide evidence of the time the hazard existed or any employee awareness, leading the court to conclude there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding notice.
Holdings
- The court determined that the plaintiff's speculation about the plastic's origin and lack of evidence regarding its presence prior to the fall precluded establishing a genuine issue of material fact for constructive notice under Louisiana law.
- The court granted Walmart's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff failed to prove that Walmart created the hazardous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. The court found no genuine issues of material fact regarding spoliation of evidence, and the motion for sanctions was denied as moot.
Remedies
The court granted Walmart's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims asserted by plaintiff Waynoaka Drake. The motion for sanctions was also denied as moot.
Legal Principles
- Under Louisiana law, a merchant owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep its premises free of hazardous conditions that could foreseeably cause injury. This includes maintaining safe aisles, passageways, and floors.
- The plaintiff must prove the merchant either created the hazardous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it prior to the injury. Speculation alone cannot establish this burden.
Precedent Name
- Guidry v. Brookshire Grocery Co.
- Gray v. Wal-Mart La., LLC
- McDowell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- Peterson v. Brookshire Grocery Co.
- Savoie v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Assoc.
- Deshotel v. Wal-Mart La., LLC
- Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc.
Cited Statute
Louisiana Merchant Liability Act
Judge Name
- Perez-Montes
- Dee D. Drell
Passage Text
- Neither the statements relied upon by Ms. Drake nor the conclusion she reached regarding how the piece of plastic came to be on the floor establish a genuine question of fact as to creation of the hazard.
- As Ms. Drake is unable to carry her very heavy burden of proving that Walmart breached the duty it owed to her as a patron pursuant to the Louisiana Merchant Premises Liability Act, Walmart's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 26) shall be GRANTED.
- To prove constructive notice, Ms. Drake would need to present evidence 'that the condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care.'