311 So.3d 428
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Arnold Romain slipped and fell on ice outside the front door of a Burger King in New Orleans on January 17, 2018; he had observed ice on the sidewalk when entering.
- Romain alleges an employee poured water on the ice, making it more dangerous; he told the manager the sidewalk was dangerous and requested a rug, which was refused.
- Three other customers warned the supervisor not to pour water; after Romain fell, one of those men also slipped while helping him up.
- Defendants (Brooks Restaurants and Sentinel) moved for summary judgment arguing the icy condition was open and obvious to all and thus not unreasonably dangerous.
- The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Romain’s claims with prejudice; the Fourth Circuit, applying de novo review, affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the icy/wet sidewalk was an "unreasonably dangerous" condition under La. C.C. art. 2317.1 and merchant-liability principles | Romain: a genuine fact issue exists whether pouring water on visible ice created an unreasonably dangerous condition and whether defendants breached a duty | Defendants: the hazard was open and obvious to everyone (Romain and other patrons), so no unreasonable risk and no duty to protect | Court: Granted summary judgment for defendants — no genuine issue that the condition was open and obvious to all; Romain’s personal awareness is not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Jazz Casino Co., L.L.C., 245 So.3d 68 (standard for de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (articulates risk-utility test for "unreasonably dangerous")
- Hooper v. Brown, 171 So.3d 995 (open-and-obvious inquiry requires the risk be apparent to all who encounter it; focus on global knowledge)
- Broussard v. State of Louisiana, 113 So.3d 175 (explains the "open and obvious to all" standard)
- Allen v. Lockwood, 156 So.3d 650 (summary judgment appropriate when plaintiff cannot produce factual support that a condition is unreasonably dangerous)
- Caserta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 90 So.3d 1041 (applying open-and-obvious analysis)
- Sepulvado v. Traveler’s Ins., 261 So.3d 980 (merchant generally has no duty to protect against open and obvious hazards)