236 So. 3d 1268
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Richard J. Boutall fell at the entrance to Minerva Café after his left foot "gave out," allegedly when it stumbled on a 2–3 inch concrete ramp/step, causing multiple serious injuries and substantial medical bills.
- Boutall sued the property owner (Christakis, P.M., Co. LLC) under La. C.C. art. 2322 (liability for ruin/defect of a building), alleging negligent maintenance caused an unreasonably dangerous condition.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits: an engineer who said the 2.5" step and painted ramp were safe and conspicuous, and the owner who testified he had no notice of any prior problems or accidents at the entrance.
- Plaintiff submitted an engineer’s affidavits and photos alleging the ramp was noncompliant with ADA standards (16% slope vs. 8.33% max) and that uniform red paint obscured contrast, creating a hazard.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, finding plaintiff failed to show the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect; plaintiff’s motion for new trial was denied.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiff did not raise a genuine issue of material fact on the owner’s knowledge element required by article 2322.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the entrance/ramp was a building "vice, ruin or defect" presenting an unreasonable risk of harm under La. C.C. art. 2322 | Boutall: Ramp slope and uniform red paint created an unreasonably dangerous condition that caused his fall | Christakis: Ramp met safety standards, painted contrast made it conspicuous, and did not present an unreasonable risk | Court did not decide on unreasonableness because plaintiff failed to show owner knowledge; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect (essential element under art. 2322) | Boutall: Expert evidence of defect (ADA noncompliance and visibility issues) created an issue of fact that owner should have known | Christakis: Owner affidavit denies any complaints or prior incidents; expert says condition was conspicuous and well-maintained | Held for defendant: plaintiff produced no evidence of actual or constructive notice; no genuine issue of material fact on knowledge |
| Admissibility/relevance of ADA standards and expert testimony to prove defect | Boutall: ADA noncompliance relevant to show alteration/unsafe slope and visibility issues | Christakis: ADA irrelevant to art. 2322 structural-defect claim; sought to exclude plaintiff’s expert testimony as irrelevant | Court implicitly accepted defendant’s focus on lack of notice; ADA-based critique did not create material fact on owner knowledge |
| Whether summary judgment standard was correctly applied | Boutall: Competing expert affidavits present factual disputes for jury | Christakis: Moving party showed absence of factual support for an element (owner knowledge) | Court (de novo review): moving party met burden; non-movant failed to produce evidence to meet burden at trial; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Broussard v. State, through Office of State Bldgs., Div. of Admin., 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (sets elements for art. 2322 and adopts risk-utility test for unreasonable risk of harm)
- Celestine v. Union Oil Co. of California, 652 So.2d 1299 (La. 1995) (discusses amendment of art. 2322 shifting owner liability toward fault-based standard)
- Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So.2d 1146 (La. 1983) (owner liable only for defects that create an unreasonable risk of harm)
- Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., 365 So.2d 1285 (La. 1978) (similar discussion of unreasonable risk requirement under building liability)
- Boutin v. Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, 164 So.3d 243 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (summary judgment burden and requirement that non-movant produce evidence to meet trial burden)