Writ application denied.
I would grant and assign for briefing this writ application to examine whether the lower courts erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, I believe the question of whether plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the merchant defendant “either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which caused the damage, prior to the occurrence” warrants further study. La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B)(2) (emphasis added)); see also Kennedy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98-1939, p. 3-4 (La. 4/13/99), 733 So. 2d 1188, 1191 (granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment where a claimant proved the existence of water on the floor but failed to make “an additional showing that the condition existed for some time before the fall.”) (quoting White v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 97-0393 (La. 9/9/97), 699 So.2d 1081). Accordingly, I would grant defendants’ application, assign the case for briefing, and allow the parties to request oral argument pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 966(H) in order to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist such that the case can survive summary judgment.
Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons.