A customer at a local Wal Mart store slipped and fell on dried dog food which had been left in the aisle by store personnel. Extensive discovery showed that the department manager had failed to provide adequate cleanup for the store-created hazard. Other cases...

Toll-Free: 1.800.250.4436 Phone: 985.851.3311 Fax: 985.851.4521 Email: info@kopflerhermann.com Address: 7910 Main Street P.O. Box 3760 Whitney National Bank Building Houma, LA 70361 View Map & Directions

A roofing contractor who had gone to a loading dock for supplies tripped on a one-inch metal stud sticking up from the concrete walking surface at the dock and fell, injuring his shoulder and knee. When he realized the potential severity of his injuries, he contacted Kopfler & Hermann to handle his case, which was recently concluded for $325,000.00 after intense settlement negotiations.

During our investigation of the case, we discovered that this particular dock had at least ten metal studs sticking up from the concrete walking surface which had caused tripping incidents in the past. After our client’s accident, the supply company easily removed the studs in a short period of time.

While the laws on slip, trip and fall cases changed dramatically in the early 90's in a case called White v. Wal Mart, our firm recognized that the cause of the trip and fall in this particular case was created by the supply company which gave our client a chance to collect for his injuries.

“When a person slips and falls on a foreign substance in a grocery or department store, he must generally prove how long the substance has been on the floor to show whether the store employees had enough time to clean up the mess,” according to Joseph G. Kopfler, the attorney who handled the case. 

“Of course, this is an almost impossible burden to meet because in most cases, there is no way for a person to know how long the foreign substance has been on the floor.”

“However, when the hazardous condition is created by the store itself, the rule is different because the store is presumed to know of the defects in its walking surface. In this case, this was a very defective walking surface,” Kopfler added. 

After the initial investigation and discovery were conducted, Kopfler filed what is known as a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. That is, based upon all of the facts that had been brought out during the discovery process, Kopfler had proven that the metal studs were a hazard, that our client tripped on one of them, and that the supply company knew or should have known of their existence, thus creating fault and liability against the store.

“It’s usually the insurance companies bringing the motions for summary judgment. Our firm has gotten aggressive from the opposite side of the fence and we now bring these motions routinely when we have a clear cut liability issue,” Kopfler said.

During the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the insurance company lawyer argued that our client was unable to identify the precise stud upon which he fell. To the amusement of the judge and all of the onlookers in court that day, Kopfler stated that there were ten studs sticking out of the walking surface and it didn’t really matter which one the client tripped on.

“The insurance company lawyer also argued that our client was not looking down at the time he was walking,” Kopfler explained. “Well, he wasn’t looking up either. He was looking straight ahead as most people do when they are walking. In a well-traveled area, people expect that the floor surface is going to be free of tripping and slipping hazards and they have a right to expect that the store has not negligently allowed such hazards to exist.”

After hearing all the arguments, the court granted our motion for summary judgment and ruled, as a matter of law and fact, that the supply company was at fault for this accident. That left the issue of damages as the only remaining issue.

“That turned out to be kind of comical, too,” Kopfler said.