A Louisiana appeals court has reversed and remanded a case in which a woman says she was injured by a defective bottle of bleach cleaner at a Dollar General store.
In the November 27 opinion, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal sent the case back to District Court in Jefferson Parish, which had granted summary judgment to DG Louisiana LLC.
According to court filings, Melinda Hatzgionidis went to a Dollar General store on March 6, 2022, to buy cleaning supplies. She stood on the lower shelf to reach up to a shelf above her head to get a spray bottle of DG Home Cleaner with Bleach.
After she grabbed the bottle, it leaked fluid onto her eyes, face and clothes. She says she became disoriented after the cleaner spilled onto her, and she dropped the bottle into the shopping basket and onto the floor.
“She thought that the container was in good condition and it appeared to be full, but the bottle was ‘broken at the top,’ though the top was firmly screwed on,” the filing states. “Her daughter and her daughter’s boyfriend took pictures of the bottle and the area where the incident occurred.”
In March 2023, Hatzgionidis filed her petition for damages against DG Louisiana and its then unknown insurer. DG Louisiana filed an answer denying the allegations and countered by saying the accident was caused solely by Hatzgionidis as “she failed to exercise reasonable care and caution under the circumstances and failed to observe an open and obvious condition.”
DG filed a motion for summary judgment in October 2023 arguing Hatzgionidis could not satisfy the elements of proof required to sustain a claim against defendants. Hatzgionidis opposed, saying the broken bottle was the cause of the accident. She says the bottle was manufactured and sold by DG, making it sound in products liability law under the Louisiana Products Liability Act.
At a hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Hatzgionidis said she was “still not quite ready” and needed extra time for discovery regarding alternate theories of liability.
At the end of the hearing, the lower court agreed with DG Louisiana and found that the cause-in-fact of the accident was plaintiff “not requesting help and pulling the bottle down without knowing if the cap was broken or not.” The court granted summary judgment in favor of DG Louisiana and dismissed Hatzgionidis’ claims against all parties with prejudice. She then appealed that ruling.
In the appeals opinion, the judges say Hatzgionidis says she “had no reason to suspect that the structure of the bottle was compromised.”
“Plaintiff has presented testimony and pictures that are competent evidence to establish that bleach spilled onto her before the bottle hit the shopping cart or the floor,” the ruling states. “The store maintains that another customer dropped the bottle and that is why the lid allowed cleaner to escape, but plaintiff argues that the spray bottle may have been defective.”
The appeals court also says the lower court chose to credit DG’s estimation of why the cleaner spilled onto Hatzgionidis, but it says the court “must draw those inferences from the undisputed facts which are most favorable to the party opposing the motion.”
“Whether the bottle was defective when it left the manufacturer or whether another person was responsible for compromising the integrity of the bottle once it reached the store are genuine issues of material fact at this point in the litigation,” the ruling states.
The ruling also says the parties must be able to conduct “adequate discovery” and be given a fair opportunity to present their claims.
“We find that the district court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of DG Louisiana at this stage of the litigation without allowing plaintiff time to conduct additional discovery,” the opinion states. “The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The ruling was authored by Judge Mark E. Johnson. Judge Susan M. Chehardt and Judge Jude G. Gravois concurred in the opinion.
Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal case number 24-CA-224