102 So. 3d 904
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Alexander, a passenger on an ATV driven by Cory Bunch, was injured on a levee in St. John the Baptist Parish after the ATV struck an above-ground pipeline.
- Plaintiffs asserted liability against Bunch, the Parish (pipeline owner), the Pontchartrain Levee District (PLD) as custodian of the levee surface, and insurers.
- The Parish and PLD separately moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the Parish’s motion and denied PLD’s motion, with subsequent appellate history leading to a re-urging of PLD’s motion.
- The trial court later granted PLD’s re-urged motion for summary judgment on duty-risk elements, finding no duty owed and no unreasonably dangerous condition.
- The court determined custody was not essential to liability since the pipeline was not an unreasonably dangerous condition, and even with custody, plaintiff could not prove the other elements of negligence.
- On appeal, Alexander challenged the denial of PLD’s motion and the grant of summary judgment, arguing that issues of material fact remained and that the pipeline could be unreasonably dangerous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the re-urging of PLD’s motion was proper and whether it properly resolved material factual issues. | Alexander argues no new facts or law justified granting the motion a second time. | PLD contends that meaningful additions to the record showed no genuine material facts remained. | Yes; the court affirmed the re-urged grant as proper. |
| Whether the pipeline constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition that PLD owed a duty to Alexander to address. | Alexander argues evidence showed an unreasonably dangerous condition and duty by custodian. | PLD argues the pipeline was readily apparent and not unreasonably dangerous, and the driver’s conduct was the cause. | No; the court held the pipeline was not unreasonably dangerous and PLD did not owe a duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Horseshoe Entm’t, 766 So.2d 595 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2000) (re-urged summary judgment analysis supports continued disposition)
- Monumental Life Ins. Co. v. Landry, 846 So.2d 798 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2003) (meaningful additions required to support re-urge of summary judgment)
- Young v. Dupre Transp. Co., 700 So.2d 1156 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1997) (require meaningful additions to record for re-urge)
- Clement v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 735 So.2d 670 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1999) (summary judgment standards and record supplementation)
- Misuraca v. City of Kenner, 802 So.2d 784 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2001) (duty-risk framework justified grant of summary judgment)
- Ardoin v. Lewisburg Water Sys., 963 So.2d 1049 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2007) (open hazard not unreasonably dangerous; summary judgment affirmed)
- Waring v. Travelers Ins. Co., 891 So.2d 119 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (duty-risk analysis in summary judgment context)
- Oster v. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., State of La., 582 So.2d 1285 (La. 1991) (apparentness and duty considerations in negligence)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (duty-risk five-element test)
- Long v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 916 So.2d 87 (La. 2005) (defining duty and risk analysis framework)