UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-31197
Summary Calendar
JESSIE JEFFERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(93-CV-1780)
June 25, 1996
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Jessie Jefferson injured herself when she
slipped and fell in some water on the floor in a Wal-Mart store in
Pineville, Louisiana. She filed suit for personal injuries and
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
1
damages against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging that Wal-Mart
either caused or had actual or constructive knowledge of an unsafe
condition and failed to take reasonable precautions which would
have prevented Appellant’s injuries. At trial, the jury found that
Wal-Mart either created a hazardous condition or had actual or
constructive notice of the condition before the accident. However,
the jury went on to find that Wal-Mart acted in a reasonably
prudent manner in exercising its duty to keep the store premises
free of any hazardous conditions. Pursuant to this verdict, the
district court entered judgment in favor of Wal-Mart. Appellant
filed a motion for new trial, alleging that the jury’s finding
concerning Wal-Mart’s reasonable prudence was contrary to the law
and the evidence, which the district court denied.
We may overturn a decision denying a motion for new trial only
if the district court abused its discretion. Seidman v. American
Airlines, Inc., 923 F.2d 1134, 1140 (5th Cir. 1991). In reviewing
the district court’s actions, the evidence is viewed in the light
most favorable to the jury verdict. Id. The district court abuses
its discretion by denying a new trial only when there is an
“absolute absence of evidence to support the jury’s verdict.” Id.
Lousiana law controls the merits of this action, based on the
district court’s diversity jurisdiction. Under Louisiana law, it
was the plaintiff’s burden to prove that Wal-Mart did not exercise
reasonable procedures to make their premises safe. LSA-R.S.
2
9:2800.6.
The jury was instructed pursuant to Louisiana law as follows.
On a damp and rainy day it is understandable that there might be
some moisture in the entrance area of a store. The law recognizes
that to require a storekeeper to keep a floor completely dry during
rain or to hold the store responsible for every slick place due to
rain water tracked in by customers or buggies would impose an
unreasonable standard of care which the law does not require of a
store owner. Rather, the defendant must take reasonable steps to
protect its patrons from injury because of the wet condition by
mopping, sweeping, placing adequate mats, covering and if
necessary, by a warning commensurate with the condition. These
instructions were based on Johnson v. Tayco Foods, 475 So.2d 65
(La. App. 2 Cir. 1985) and Edwards v. Piggly Wiggly, 401 So.2d 493
(La. App. 2 Cir. 1981). Jefferson does not contend that the
instructions were in error.
The evidence and argument at trial centered on the fact that
Jefferson entered the store through an exit door and fell in that
vicinity, while Wal-Mart’s safety precautions were concentrated in
front of the entrance doors. The question for the jury was
whether, under these specific circumstances, Wal-Mart’s duty
required it to provide more or different safety precautions to
prevent patrons from slipping on a wet floor. The jury’s
determination that Wal-Mart acted in a reasonably prudent manner in
3
exercising its duty to the keep the store premises free of
hazardous conditions is supported by evidence in the record. For
that reason, we find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Jefferson’s motion for new trial.
AFFIRMED.
4