Circuit Court agrees Popeye's not at fault in fall

Popeye’s was not at fault for a woman slipping and falling in its Eunice  restaurant, according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal.
Norma Richard claimed she was seriously injured as the result of slipping on an unknown substance at the restaurant in July 2010 and that it was the fault of the restaurant.
According to Richard, after placing their orders and receiving their food, she and a man with her began to leave. Richard alleges that when she attempted to stop and ask the  man a question, her feet “just never stopped” and she fell.
 She later said she did not know what she slipped on, did not feel to see if there was anything slippery on the floor, and did not look to see if there were stains on her clothing. However, she was adamant that she did not trip. Richard stated that she did not file an accident report with the restaurant until three days later, the court noted in its ruling this month.
According to her deposition testimony, Ms. Richard incurred several fractured ribs and an unidentified muscle or nerve condition as a result of the fall. She also testified that her doctor informed her that she would likely have problems with her back “forever.” Richard contends that she missed more than a month of work as a result of her injuries and has been on light duty since she returned to work.
Richard sued and after a hearing Dist. Judge Ellis Daigle dismissed the claim.
Richard appealed, saying Daigle erred in granting the motion for summary judgment.
According to the Third Circuit,
“Popeye’s contends that Ms. Richard could not identify what substance was on the floor, noting that Ms. Richard testified that she did not see anyone spill anything on the floor, did not see any slippery liquid or other substance on her shoes after she fell, denied “feeling around” to see if there was anything on the floor, and denied looking to see if there was anything on her clothing as a result of the fall.
“Further, Popeye’s argues that Ms. Richard offered no evidence that would indicate how long the substance had been on the floor, thus failing to meet the temporal requirements of constructive notice. In response to Popeye’s contentions, Ms. Richard argues that Popeye’s either created a defective condition as a result of the nature of its business or that Popeye’s had constructive notice of the hazard.
“Ms. Richard’s first argument is essentially that, “slippery substances on floors in fast-food restaurants, particularly those specializing in deep-fried products, can be proven, by very reasonable inferences, to have been created by the products produced by such restaurants.” Ms. Richard insinuates that Popeye’s created the risk due to the nature of Popeye’s products and that the risk was exacerbated by the installation of tile in the restaurant.”
“Additionally, Ms. Richard has pointed to no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, which would indicate that one of Popeye’s employees caused any defective condition. Although Ms. Richard alternatively contends that Popeye’s created the condition by installing dangerously slippery tile, she has submitted only speculation and unsupported allegations, not evidence, that the tile was somehow inappropriate for use in restaurant floors.”
Although Ms. Richard testified about the length of time she was in the restaurant and that she did not see anyone spill anything on the floor, Ms. Richard could not identify a substance that caused her to fall, the court pointed out.
“Ms. Richard has offered no evidence which would establish that Popeye’s would have discovered the alleged spill if it had exercised reasonable care, such as when Popeye’s employees last inspected the floor, or even evidence of Popeye’s inspection policies. Instead, Ms. Richard offers speculation about “nonchalance” and “extreme lack of concern” on the part of Popeye’s employees.
“Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s grant of the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendants.”