JOSEPH DAIGRE JR v. GOLDEN NUGGET LAKE CHARLES LLC AND XYZ INSURANCE CO (2026)

This appeal involves a slip and fall at Golden Nugget Casino in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Joseph D. Daigre, Jr. alleges that he injured his elbow when he slipped and fell outside a pool bathroom. He appeals summary judgment granted in favor of Golden Nugget finding it not liable.

FACTS

On July 4, 2019, Mr. Daigre traveled from his home in Lafayette, Louisiana to Golden Nugget Casino with several friends. They arrived around 10:30 to 11:00 a.m. and rented Cabana 22 by the pool for the day. The group had drinks by the pool. Mr. Daigre stated that he was a light drinker, so he only had four drinks during the day. Later that evening, between the hours of 6:00 and 7:00 p.m., Mr. Daigre went to the bathroom. He alleges that he lost his footing and fell while entering the bathroom, hitting his elbow. The group left the Golden Nugget around 7:30 to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Daigre explained that he woke up the next morning and his elbow was swollen like a baseball. The next day he went to the doctor and had X-rays taken. He was told that he had a couple of broken bones in his elbow.

On July 8, 2019, Mr. Daigre went back to the Golden Nugget and filled out a statement about the fall, reporting the same facts as above. On July 6, 2020, Mr. Daigre filed suit against Golden Nugget. On April 24, 2025, Golden Nugget filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing on the motion was held on September 19, 2025. The trial court granted Golden Nugget's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Mr. Daigre's claims. Mr. Daigre appealed the judgment.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Mr. Daigre argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because he presented evidence that created genuine issues of material fact as to whether the entrance to the pool bathroom created an unreasonable risk of harm and whether Golden Nugget had constructive notice of the hazardous condition under La.R.S. 9:2800.6. He claims that Golden Nugget did not take protective measures at a pool bathroom entrance on a high-traffic holiday. Mr. Daigre also claims that there is missing surveillance footage, spanning most of the window of time when he claims his fall occurred, which prevented him from establishing the temporal element of constructive notice. Mr. Daigre further argues that the trial court made credibility determinations and weighed evidence, which is prohibited on a motion for summary judgment.

Golden Nugget argues that there is an absence of factual support to show that there was a condition that presented an unreasonable risk of harm. It further argues that even if Mr. Daigre's conclusory statements and speculation are considered competent evidence, there is no factual support that Golden Nugget had actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition or that it failed to exercise reasonable care.

“The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, except those disallowed by Article 969. The procedure is favored and shall be construed to accomplish these ends.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A)(2). “[A] motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A)(3).

In O'Neal v. Foremost Insurance Co., 24-212, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/25/25), 416 So.3d 809, 813, this court explained:

[T]he burden of producing evidence at the motion hearing is “on the mover, who can ordinarily meet that burden by submitting affidavits or by pointing out the lack of factual support for an essential element in the opponent's case.” Schultz v. Guoth, 10-343, p. 6 (La. 1/19/11), 57 So.3d 1002, 1006. Procedurally, therefore, the court's first task is to determine whether the moving party's motion, memorandum, affidavits, and supporting documents “are sufficient to resolve all material factual issues.” Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512, p. 28 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730, 752. “To satisfy this burden, the mover must meet a strict standard of showing that it is quite clear as to what is the truth and that there has been excluded any real doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Indus. Sand & Abrasives, Inc. v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 427 So.2d 1152, 1154 (La.1983).

The appellate standard of review on a motion for a summary judgment is de novo. 23rd Psalm Trucking, L.L.C. v. Madison Par. Police Jury, 24-808 (La. 6/27/25), 413 So.3d 370. “[A]n adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided above, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 967(B).

Circumstantial evidence may establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment; however, the response of the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue of fact exists. Guillory v. The Chimes, 2017-0479 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/21/17), 240 So.3d 193, 195. Although factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion, mere conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation will not support a finding of a genuine issue of material fact. Id.

Wilson v. Reed, 22-99, pp. 3–4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/21/22), 354 So.3d 42, 45.

In Louisiana, slip and fall actions are governed by The Merchant Liability Statute, La.R.S. 9:2800.6, which provides as follows:

A. 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. This duty includes a reasonable effort to keep the premises free of any hazardous conditions which reasonably might give rise to damage.

B. 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, in addition to all other elements of his cause of action, all of the following:

(1) The condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the claimant and that risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.

(2) The merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which caused the damage, prior to the occurrence.

(3) The merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. In determining reasonable care, the absence of a written or verbal uniform cleanup or safety procedure is insufficient, alone, to prove failure to exercise reasonable care.

C. Definitions:

(1) “Constructive notice” means the claimant has proven that the condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care. The presence of an employee of the merchant in the vicinity in which the condition exists does not, alone, constitute constructive notice, unless it is shown that the employee knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the condition.

(2) “Merchant” means one whose business is to sell goods, foods, wares, or merchandise at a fixed place of business. For purposes of this Section, a merchant includes an innkeeper with respect to those areas or aspects of the premises which are similar to those of a merchant, including but not limited to shops, restaurants, and lobby areas of or within the hotel, motel, or inn.

D. Nothing herein shall affect any liability of which a merchant may have under Civil Code Arts. 660, 667, 669, 2317, 2322, or 2695.

Because La.R.S. 9:2800.6 places the burden of proving all of the enumerated elements on the plaintiff, a plaintiff's inability to prove any one of the three required elements is fatal to his claim. LeBlanc v. DG La., LLC, 25-517 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/25/26), 430 So.3d 731. Once the merchant identifies the missing element, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce factual support sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(D)(1).

In his petition, Mr. Daigre claimed to have “slipped on a slimy substance on the cement portion around the pool[.]” However, his deposition testimony indicates that he fell in the bathroom area and does not remember seeing any water on the floor. Even his statement to Golden Nugget security four days after the alleged incident does not indicate that there was any substance on the floor.

In his deposition testimony, Mr. Daigre explained that he walked up a ramp and turned to face a door with an awning over it. He took a couple of steps through the door, and his feet went up in the air, and he landed on his elbow. He was wearing flip-flop shoes at the time. Two women who were walking out saw him fall. They were never identified. He got up and went to the restroom. He did not think he had fallen hard enough to break his elbow. When asked what caused him to fall, Mr. Daigre replied, “I just lost my footing, and I slipped and fell.” He did not remember seeing anything on the ground, like spilled water or ice cream.

An affidavit from Jason Hicks, the security supervisor at the time Mr. Daigre filed his report with Golden Nugget, requested video surveillance of the swimming pool area from the night of the incident. However, the synopsis of the video does not start until 7:36 p.m., toward the end of time Mr. Daigre claims he fell. The video does show Mr. Daigre near the hot tub and going back to the cabana. He then leaves the cabana at 7:46 p.m. and proceeds toward the restrooms near the Rush Tower. The synopsis does indicate that Mr. Daigre left Golden Nugget at 7:56 p.m., which fits within the time frame he claimed he left. The affidavit states that surveillance did not observe Mr. Daigre falling or that he appeared to be injured. Obviously, there would be no cameras in the bathroom area itself where Mr. Daigre claimed he fell.

Logan Tucker, an employee of Golden Nugget, also filled out a report on July 8, 2019. He asserted that the gentleman in Cabana 22 never reported a fall to anyone at the pool that evening. Mr. Tucker did speak to Mr. Daigre between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. because Mr. Daigre claimed a cocktail waitress went into his bag and took his credit card. Mr. Tucker determined that the waitress took Mr. Daigre's card to start a tab and then returned it to him. During this interaction, Mr. Daigre did not indicate that he had fallen or was hurt.

In a slip and fall case under La.R.S. 9:2800.6, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of the hazardous condition that caused him to fall. Pierite v. DG La., LLC, 18-149 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/18), 258 So.3d 901, writ denied, 19-127 (La. 3/18/19), 267 So.3d 93. The defendant does not have to make a positive showing of the absence of a hazardous condition prior to the fall. Id. A hazard is established when the plaintiff's fall results from a foreign substance on a floor or an unreasonable slippery surface. Id.

In Trench v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery LLC, 14-152 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/24/14), 150 So.3d 472, the fifth circuit affirmed summary judgment granted in favor of Winn-Dixie because the plaintiff failed to provide any factual support that she fell due to a condition on the floor that presented an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm. The plaintiff admitted that she did not know what caused her to fall.

Also, in Lewis v. Golden Nugget Lake Charles, LLC, 23-778 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/17/24), 393 So.3d 962, this court granted summary judgment in favor of Golden Nugget. The plaintiff slipped and fell near a restaurant entryway on a waxy, glossy, slick substance when walking to the restrooms. This court held that “[t]he fact that [the plaintiff] fell on a floor that appeared shiny, without evidence that there was a substance on the floor or otherwise establishing that the floor was so slippery that it was unreasonably dangerous, is insufficient to satisfy [the plaintiff's] burden of proof.” Id. at 971.

Mr. Daigre tries to create an inference that there was water on the bathroom floor with affidavits that indicated it was a busy day at Golden Nugget's pool since it was July 4 and that there were lots of people going in and out of the pool and going in and out of the restroom. However, there is no competent factual evidence that there was water on the bathroom floor creating an unreasonably dangerous condition. Importantly, Mr. Daigre himself testified in his deposition that he could not remember seeing water on the floor. He stated, “I just lost my footing, and I slipped and fell.” Furthermore, there is also an absence of any evidence that the floor itself was hazardous.

After our de novo review, we find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Golden Nugget. There is no proof of any hazardous or unreasonable condition on the floor where Mr. Daigre claimed he fell. Without evidence of a hazardous condition, Golden Nugget cannot be found liable under La.R.S. 9:2800.6.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Joseph D. Daigre, Jr.

AFFIRMED.

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

P.O. Box 16577

Lake Charles, LA. 70616

(337) 433-9403

Christopher Paul Ieyoub

Plauche, Smith & Nieset

P. O. Drawer 1705

Lake Charles, LA 70602

Pride Justin Doran

Doran & Cawthorne, PLLC

P. O. Box 2119

Opelousas, LA 70571

Hon. David Alexander Ritchie

Calcasieu Parish Judge

P. O. Box 3210

Lake Charles, LA 70602

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

October 21, 2026

Docket Number: CA 26- 147

JOSEPH D. DAIGRE, JR.

VERSUS

GOLDEN NUGGET LAKE CHARLES, LLC AND XYZ INSURANCE CO.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the attached judgment and written opinion was rendered this date and a copy was mailed to the trial judge, all counsel of record and all parties not represented by counsel as listed above.

FOR THE COURT

Renée R. Simien Clerk of Court

GUY E. BRADBERRY JUDGE