206 So. 3d 904
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- In January 2013 Randolph Barnett’s pickup was struck when an overhead school-zone traffic signal fell onto his vehicle on North Foster Drive in East Baton Rouge Parish.
- Barnett sued the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge (City-Parish) in January 2014 alleging the sign was defective and caused his injuries.
- City-Parish moved for summary judgment, submitting an affidavit from its signal shop supervisor stating the sign’s collar failed during a thunderstorm with high gusts and that the break was sudden, not the result of a condition that developed over time or could have been detected by inspection.
- Barnett opposed with an engineering report from Leroy Blanchard opining the assembly had deficient thread design, produced a stress concentration, and likely failed from fatigue due to cyclical loading — suggesting the City-Parish selected/installed an inadequate fixture.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for City-Parish, finding Barnett could not prove actual or constructive notice and thus could not meet his burden at trial.
- The appellate court reversed, holding Blanchard’s report created a genuine issue whether the City-Parish created the defective condition by substandard conduct, which dispenses with the notice requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on plaintiff’s claim against a public entity for a defective thing under La. R.S. 9:2800C | Barnett: expert shows the City-Parish selected/installed an assembly with inadequate design (fatigue-prone), so the City-Parish created the defect and notice need not be proved | City-Parish: no actual notice; affidavit says failure was sudden due to a storm and not detectable or developing over time, so no constructive notice | Reversed: expert report raises genuine issue that City-Parish’s own substandard conduct created the defect, so summary judgment on notice was improper |
| Whether plaintiff must prove actual or constructive notice when the public entity created the defective condition | Barnett: creation of the defect by the public entity implies knowledge; no need to prove notice | City-Parish: insists absence of prior reports/inspections shows no notice | Held: If public entity created the defect by substandard conduct, knowledge may be presumed and notice need not be proved |
| Whether the engineer’s report could be considered in opposition to summary judgment | Barnett: report attached to opposition and not timely objected to by defendant | City-Parish: did not object to the report’s admission | Held: Report considered (per prior CCP article practice) and creates material fact dispute |
| Whether the trial court improperly made factual findings on summary judgment (i.e., that plaintiff could not prove notice at trial) | Barnett: court improperly resolved disputed fact (notice) instead of leaving for trial | City-Parish: argued plaintiff had no evidentiary support | Held: Trial court erred by resolving notice issue on summary judgment given competing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Morgan, 196 So.3d 71 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2016) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (framework for public-entity defective-thing claims)
- Tomaso v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 174 So.3d 679 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2015) (materiality determined by substantive law)
- Toston v. Pardon, 874 So.2d 791 (La. 2004) (elements plaintiff must prove under public-entity defective-thing doctrine)
- Whatley v. City of Winnfield, 802 So.2d 983 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2001) (public entity presumed to know of condition it created by substandard conduct)
- Falcon v. La. Dep’t of Transp., 168 So.3d 476 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (public entity has duty to know and correct what it should have known)