SAVOIE, Judge.
Plaintiff Regina Williams appeals the judgment of the trial court granting Defendant Brookshire Grocery Company's (Brookshire) Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing her claims in their entirety. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
On May 2, 2012, Ms. Williams was shopping with her daughter at a Super 1 Foods owned and operated by Brookshire and located in New Iberia, Louisiana. She noticed a wet floor sign while she was walking down Aisle 10 in the frozen food section. After she passed the sign by a few steps, she slipped and fell on what she describes as a "puddle of water" on the floor, sustaining injuries.
Ms. Williams filed a Petition for Damages on December 6, 2012, alleging negligence on the part of Brookshire, who subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court ruled in favor of Brookshire, dismissing Ms. Williams's claims.
Did the trial court err in granting Brookshire's Motion for Summary Judgment?
The Louisiana Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Bordelon, 14-2371, pp. 2-3 (La. 6/30/15), 172 So.3d 607, 610-11 (footnotes omitted), explained the summary judgment standard as follows:
Brookshire "must satisfy [its] burden by `submitting affidavits or pointing out the lack of factual support for an essential element in the opponent's case.'" Id. at 612 (citing La.Code Civ.P. art. 966) (footnote omitted). It is then Ms. Williams' burden to come forward with evidence that establishes her claim.
Plaintiff's claim is found in La.R.S. 9:2800.6, which provides, in pertinent part:
In accordance with La.R.S. 9:2800.6, Brookshire owed a duty to Ms. Williams to exercise reasonable care in keeping its floors in a reasonably safe condition and in keeping the store free of hazardous conditions. Ms. Williams, in order to succeed on her claim, must prove the water on the floor existed and it presented an unreasonable risk of harm; Brookshire either created or had actual or constructive notice of the water; and Brookshire failed to exercise reasonable care.
Attached to Brookshire's Motion for Summary Judgment are excerpts of deposition testimony by Ms. Williams and excerpts of the deposition testimony by two employees, Toby Lejeune and Faron Thibodeaux. Both employees testified that the wet floor sign was placed on Aisle 10 to warn customers of a faulty metal plate covering a floor drain. Ms. Williams attached to her opposition the depositions of Cindy Faughn and Stacey Baudoin, also Brookshire employees, who both stated they did not recall the faulty metal plate or the wet floor sign. The deposition of Priscilla Dupuis was also attached by Ms. Williams. Ms. Dupuis was the store's utility clerk and was in charge of maintaining the building. She, also, did not recall the faulty metal plate.
Ms. Williams alleges that the Brookshire employees' testimony is inconsistent, and that this creates a genuine issue of material fact. We disagree. While certain employees may not recall the existence of the faulty metal plate, this certainly doesn't arise to the level of creating a genuine issue of material fact. More importantly, the evidence does not establish proof of Brookshire's actual or constructive knowledge. Rather, at best, it creates a void that is not filled by Ms. Williams. She does not set forth any evidence to prove the wet floor sign was placed there because of the water on the ground.
Further, a temporal element exists when proving a claim under La.R.S. 9:2800.6. The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the plaintiff must show the condition existed for some period of time prior to the fall. White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-393 (La.9/9/97), 699 So.2d 1081. "Whether the period of time is sufficiently lengthy that a merchant should have discovered the condition is necessarily a fact question; however, there remains the prerequisite showing of some time period." Id. at 1084.
Because Brookshire pointed out that there is a lack of factual support, the burden shifts to Ms. Williams to establish evidence. After a de novo review of the record, we find "no factual support that the condition which caused [Ms. Williams] to fall existed for such a `period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care.'" Richard v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 13-26, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/9/13), 123 So.3d 345, 349 (citing La.R.S. 9:2800.6(C)(1)). Further, there is no evidence which supports
Thus, we find no error in the trial court's granting of Brookshire's Motion for Summary Judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court granting Defendant Brookshire's Motion for Summary Judgment. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Plaintiff Regina Williams.