Opinion
No. 2020-C-01373
02-17-2021
William VANCE v. INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES, LLC
PER CURIAM
Granted. Confirmation of a default judgment requires "proof of the demand sufficient to establish a prima facie case." La. C.C.P. art. 1702(A). A prima facie case is established when the plaintiff proves the essential allegations of the petition, with competent evidence, to the same extent as if the allegations had been specifically denied. Power Mktg. Direct, Inc. v. Foster , 05-2023 (La. 9/6/06), 938 So. 2d 662, 670. In this case, plaintiff alleged he was injured after a slip and fall accident in the bathroom of the IHOP restaurant in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Although plaintiff alleged in his petition that defendant, International House of Pancakes, LLC, had care, custody, control, and guard over the bathroom as "owner and manager" of the restaurant, he offered no evidence proving defendant's ownership, management, control, or other responsibility for the condition of that particular restaurant premises. Finding plaintiff failed to present sufficient proof to establish a prima facie case that the named defendant is liable for his injuries under La. R.S. 9:2800.6, we vacate the default judgment and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings.
CRAIN, J., concurs with reasons.
I write separately to emphasize both the standard of review and the absence of the identity of the tortfeasor. A reviewing court is restricted to determining the sufficiency of the evidence offered in support of the default judgment. Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C ., 2008-1111 (La. 5/5/09), 9 So. 3d 815. The determination of whether the evidence is sufficient is governed by the manifest error standard of review. To confirm a default judgment, the plaintiff must convince the trial court that it is probable he would prevail at a trial on the merits. Power Mktg. Direct, Inc. v. Foster , 2005-2023 (La. 9/6/06), 938 So. 2d 662. It is with this mindset of deference that this application is scrutinized.
The plaintiff slipped and fell in the bathroom of an IHOP restaurant. He sued International House of Pancakes, LLC, asserting premises liability. The plaintiff alleged he fell on "the premises operated as IHOP #3432," and that International House of Pancakes, LLC "had care, custody, control, and [garde]" over the premises, as "owner and manager." But, there is no evidence in the record proving the identity of the "owner and manager." The court of appeal acknowledged the absence of proof of the identity of the owner or custodian of the restaurant in a footnote but pretermitted consideration of that fact, finding instead "the evidence sufficiently and competently establishes IHOP's status as a merchant" under La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2800.6(A) provides for the scope of the duty owed by a merchant: "[a] merchant owes a duty to persons who use his premises to exercise reasonable care to keep his aisles, passageways and floors in a reasonably safe condition." (emphasis added). Paragraph (B) of the statute establishes the burden of proof in cases against merchants, stating, "In a negligence claim brought against a merchant by a person lawfully on the merchant's premises for damages as a result of an injury, death, or loss sustained because of a fall due to a condition existing in or on a merchant's premises, the claimant shall have the burden of proving [the enunciated elements of the cause of action]." (emphasis added). The statute goes on to define "merchant" as "one whose business is to sell goods, foods, wares, or merchandise at a fixed place of business." (emphasis added). The words "his," "merchant's," and "whose" denote possession, requiring as an element of the claim that the merchant have some level of control of the premises at issue.
Moreover, the definition of "merchant" has two parts: the identity of the owner of the business and the nature of the business. The court of appeal focused only on the latter, finding IHOP #3432 clearly qualifies as an entity in the business of selling goods. While true, the record is completely devoid of evidence of the owner or custodian of IHOP #3432.
Whoever owns and operates IHOP #3432, and that may be proven to be International House of Pancakes, LLC, faces potential liability for the plaintiff's injury. But the IHOP-brand alone does not sufficiently establish ownership. The identity of the owner or operator of that business must be proven with competent evidence. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the named defendant was the same entity who owed a duty under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 to safeguard the condition of the premises located in Natchitoches, Louisiana. The trial court committed manifest error because it had no facts proving ownership or control. The court of appeal committed legal error because it found those facts unnecessary. Accordingly, I concur in the reversal of the confirmation of the default judgment.