## Facts

- Victoria Neal, an 84-year-old casino patron, fell while walking on the casino’s poured-concrete floor and fractured her left wrist.
- The floor was periodically treated with a commercial sealer/finisher about every two weeks to maintain a shiny appearance.
- The Neals alleged the sealed floor was an unreasonably dangerous walking surface; John Neal asserted derivative claims.
- No witness identified a foreign substance or transient spill at the location of the fall.
- The record contained no objective testing or expert evidence (e.g., coefficient-of-friction measurements) showing the floor was dangerously slippery.
- The trial court made factual findings about the sealant’s long-term effects (including alleged buildup and the need for periodic stripping) without evidentiary support in the record.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of technical facts about the floor sealant’s properties and long-term effects.
2. Whether, without those judicially noticed facts, plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the floor posed an unreasonable risk of harm that caused the fall.

## Decision

- The court of appeal reversed the judgment for the Neals and rendered judgment for Players, dismissing the claims.
- The court held the trial court improperly took judicial notice of specialized, technical facts concerning the sealant’s alleged buildup and slipperiness.
- Disregarding those improperly noticed facts, the court held the evidence was insufficient to prove the floor was unreasonably dangerous or that any defect caused the accident.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial notice is limited to facts generally known within the court’s jurisdiction or readily and accurately determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
- Technical or scientific propositions (such as the performance of a floor sealant over time and whether it creates a slick surface) ordinarily require proof and are not proper subjects of judicial notice.
- In premises-liability claims alleging an unreasonably dangerous condition, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the condition created an unreasonable risk of harm and that the condition caused the injury.
- Evidence that a floor was hard and shiny, coupled with the occurrence of a fall, is insufficient—without competent proof—to establish an unreasonably dangerous condition.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed because the trial court used judicial notice to supply missing technical proof about a floor sealant, and the remaining evidence did not establish that the casino floor created an unreasonable risk of harm or caused the plaintiff’s fall.


Neal v. Players Lake Charles, L.L.C., 787 So. 2d 1213 (La. Ct. App. 3 Cir. 2001)