Patricia Ann Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.

Summary

The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the apportionment of fault in a slip-and-fall action against Winn-Dixie and third-party cleaning contractors. The court held that Louisiana's comparative-fault provisions apply to claims under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 and that the merchant could not be held liable for 100% of damages based solely on its statutory duties or its contractual relationship with the cleaning contractor. The court also found insufficient evidence of operational control by Winn-Dixie and reinstated the jury's allocation of 70% fault to KAP and 30% to Winn-Dixie.

Holdings

1. La. R.S. 9:2800.6 does not preclude application of comparative-fault principles to third parties that contributed to a plaintiff's injury. Louisiana Civil Code articles 2323 and 2324 apply to claims under the merchant-liability statute and require allocation of fault among all persons causing or contributing to the harm.
2. A merchant does not escape its statutory duty to patrons by contracting for floor-cleaning services, but the merchant's statutory duty does not eliminate the independent contractor's own duty of care or make the merchant liable for the contractor's fault.
3. Winn-Dixie did not exercise operational control over KAP's employee and therefore did not fall within the exception to the general rule that a principal is not liable for an independent contractor's negligence.
4. The jury's allocation of 70% fault to KAP and 30% fault to Winn-Dixie was supported by the record and was not manifestly erroneous.
5. The district court's order requiring Winn-Dixie and Thompson each to pay 50% of the costs was properly reinstated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether La. R.S. 9:2800.6 imposes 100% or solidary liability on a merchant for a third-party cleaning contractor's fault in a slip-and-fall accident.
2. Whether Louisiana Civil Code articles 2323 and 2324 require allocation of fault among the merchant and the third-party contractor in a claim governed by La. R.S. 9:2800.6.
3. Whether Winn-Dixie exercised operational control over KAP's employee so as to create an exception to the general rule that a principal is not liable for an independent contractor's negligence.
4. Whether the jury's allocation of 70% fault to KAP and 30% fault to Winn-Dixie was manifestly erroneous.
5. Whether the district court's equal allocation of litigation costs should be reinstated.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded