LASHONDRA JONES VERSUS MARKET BASKET STORES, INC. Vs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT NUMBER 21-354 LASHONDRA JONES VERSUS MARKET BASKET STORES, INC. CONERY, Judge, concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns reasons. I join in the majority opinion to the extent it maintains the trial court’s decision to accept Jason English as an expert in the field of safety engineering. Like the majority, I find no clear error in the trial court’s decision to do so. However, I am constrained to respectfully disagree from the remainder of the majority opinion. Rather, I find that the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed pursuant to the manifest error standard of review. The majority preliminarily determines that a de novo review is warranted due to its finding that the trial court erroneously stated that “the large cardboard box, it the box – collapsed, causing [Ms. Jones] to fall onto the box on her right side and sustained personal injuries[.]” It was, of course, the pallet guard that collapsed as Ms. Jones stepped on it, not the box. I find that the majority opinion is based primarily on this coupling of words in the trial court’s ruling. Rather, the record fully supports the trial court’s judgment using the appropriate manifest error standard of review. First, the supreme court has explained that it is a “well-settled rule that the district court’s oral or written reasons for judgment form no part of the judgment, and that appellate courts review judgments, not reasons for judgment.” Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 07-1335, p. 25 (La. 4/18/08), 980 So.2d 654, 671. Moreover, the record is clear from Ms. Jones’ testimony that when she stepped on the pallet guard in order to retrieve a watermelon, it gave way, causing her to fall, doing so “against the watermelon bin on [her] right side.” Ms. Jones specifically testified that she “stepped on it (the pallet guard) I didn’t slip on it.” As she stepped on the pallet guard, it “collapsed underneath [her].” Ms. Jones testimony was uncontradicted in this regard, and the photographic evidence supports Ms. Jones’ account of the pallet guard collapsing. The phots clearly show the pallet guard away from the box, consistent with Ms. Jones standing on it, causing the pallet guard to give way and separate from the box as shown in the pictures in evidence. Additionally, Mr. English explained that Market Basket’s use of the watermelon bin placed atop the pallet guard, as encountered by Ms. Jones, posed a risk in several respects. Not only did the pallet guard pose a tripping hazard, but it elevated the watermelon bin and placed the customer at a greater distance from the produce, making it more difficult to retrieve the produce. Those reaching for a watermelon when the bin was depleted would naturally be inclined to step onto the pallet guard in order to have better access to the produce, just as Ms. Jones did. Despite that hazard, Mr. English explained, Market Basket failed to place adequate warning signs on the pallet guard or the box. The box instead had downward pointing arrows which read “step,” leading Ms. Jones to believe that the pallet guard provided a “step.” These combined conditions, along with Market Basket’s failure to restock the bin more quickly, posed a hazardous condition, according to Mr. English. And, of course, Ms. Jones’ accident resulted from Market Basket’s choice to use the bin/pallet guard display to sell watermelons. Market Basked called no opposing expert witness, and the testimony of Ms. Jones and Mr. English on these points was uncontradicted. 2 Given the presence of this evidence in the record, and especially the trial court’s opportunity to evaluate the credibility of both Ms. Jones and Mr. English at trial, I find no manifest error in the trial court’s ruling and would therefore affirm both the trial court’s finding of liability and its award of damages. See Garrett v. DG La., LLC, 21-351 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/15/21), 330 So.3d 1145, writ denied, 22121 (La. 3/15/21), _ So.3d _ (2022 WL 780489). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
