A Louisiana appellate court has reversed a trial court's decision that awarded $96,000 in damages to a minor girl who suffered injuries in a slip-and-fall incident at a Rouses Enterprises LLC store. The ruling, issued on October 22, 2026, affects the plaintiff, Sealesta Selders, and her daughter, Madisyn Selders, who alleged negligence on the part of the grocery store. The case highlights the complexities of proving liability in slip-and-fall cases.
The dispute began when Madisyn Selders, then 11 years old, slipped and fell while walking near the bakery section of a Rouses store in Baton Rouge on February 12, 2022. Sealesta, representing her daughter, filed a lawsuit claiming that the store was negligent for not maintaining a safe environment. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Selders, awarding them $50,000 in general damages, $40,000 in special damages, and $6,000 for future medical expenses. However, Rouses appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court misapplied Louisiana law regarding merchant liability.
The case was brought before the Louisiana Court of Appeal after a bench trial held on July 10, 2025. During the trial, several witnesses provided testimony, including Madisyn, her mother, and employees of Rouses. The trial court ultimately sided with the Selders, but Rouses contended that the evidence did not support the finding of negligence.
In its ruling, the appellate court examined the legal standards outlined in Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2800.6, which govern a merchant's duty to maintain safe premises. The court noted that for a plaintiff to succeed in a slip-and-fall case, they must prove that a hazardous condition existed, that the merchant had notice of the condition, and that the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. The court found that the Selders did not meet these requirements.
The court ruled, "Sealesta did not prove that there was a liquid substance on the floor at Rouses that caused Madisyn to slip and fall. None of the witnesses unequivocally testified that the floor was wet or that they saw a liquid substance on the floor."
The judges on the panel included Chief Judge McClendon and Judges Theriot, Miller, Edwards, and Fields. They concluded that the trial court's findings were not reasonable based on the evidence presented. The court emphasized that the Selders failed to demonstrate that a specific hazardous condition existed at the time of the incident, making it impossible to establish that Rouses was liable for negligence.
The ruling has significant implications for future slip-and-fall cases in Louisiana. It underscores the importance of clear evidence in establishing liability against merchants. Without concrete proof of a hazardous condition, plaintiffs may struggle to win such cases. This decision may also serve as a precedent for similar cases, potentially making it more challenging for injured parties to claim damages from businesses.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Sealesta Selders will seek to appeal the ruling to a higher court. The appellate court's decision effectively ends this particular case, but it does not preclude the possibility of related litigation in the future. If the Selders choose to pursue further legal action, they may need to present stronger evidence to support their claims.