164 So. 3d 243
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Clara Boutin sued St. Joseph Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, and their insurer after she fell exiting the church on April 4, 2010, alleging the outside steps were defective and posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
- Boutin alleged the steps were not level and lacked a handrail where she exited; she testified she stepped onto an "offset" and fell, and she and her husband later measured the offset.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, producing Boutin’s deposition excerpts, affidavits from Reverends Frank Uter and Vincent Dufresne, and photographs of the exit showing a handrail and only a visible crack that did not clearly create an uneven surface.
- Defendants’ affidavits stated they had no knowledge of prior complaints or incidents and that church staff monitored maintenance; Dufresne testified he inspected the west door area monthly and had been through it days before the fall.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue that the steps posed an unreasonable risk and no evidence defendants knew or should have known of a defect; Boutin appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the steps presented an unreasonable risk of harm | Boutin: testimony that steps were "not level," had an "offset," and lacked a rail where she fell | Defendants: photos show a rail and no broken, slanted, or uneven steps; crack did not create hazardous surface | Court: No genuine issue—photographs and evidence do not show a defect creating unreasonable risk |
| Whether defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect | Boutin: Dufresne’s deposition shows oversight and monthly passage through the door, implying notice | Defendants: Affidavits deny any prior reports or incidents; staff monitored maintenance | Court: No genuine issue—testimony insufficient to show actual or constructive notice |
| Whether plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to meet her trial burden | Boutin: relies on her deposition, photographs, and Dufresne’s testimony to create a triable issue | Defendants: point to absence of factual support for essential elements (defect and notice) | Court: Boutin failed to produce factual support showing she could meet burden at trial; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the trial court improperly made credibility determinations on summary judgment | Boutin: argues court improperly weighed credibility | Defendants: contend record lacks factual support regardless of credibility disputes | Court: De novo review finds no genuine dispute of material fact; no improper credibility resolution that alters outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Parry, 61 So.3d 1 (discusses purpose of summary judgment)
- Alexander v. Parish of St. John the Baptist, 33 So.3d 999 (summary judgments favored and liberally applied)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (definition of genuine issue and material fact for summary judgment)
- Breaux v. Fresh Start Properties, L.L.C., 78 So.3d 849 (standards for appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Dufrene v. Gautreau Family, LLC, 980 So.2d 68 (constructive knowledge and duty to discover defects)
- Casborn v. Jefferson Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 96 So.3d 540 (duration of condition and constructive knowledge)
- Babino v. Jefferson Transit, 110 So.3d 1123 (mover’s burden and nonmoving party’s response under CCP art. 966)
- Anny v. Babin, 99 So.3d 702 (material fact and summary judgment standards)