191 So. 3d 652
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- After a December 16, 2007 Saints game, an overcrowded Superdome elevator dropped multiple floors; ceiling tiles, lights and insulation fell, and occupants were trapped and injured until rescuers extricated them.
- Plaintiffs Jocelyn Burch, Kizzy Stamps and Keela James sued SMG (Superdome manager) and the State; trial court found SMG negligent and initially cast both SMG and the State in judgment, later amending judgment to make SMG 100% liable and dismiss the State.
- Trial court concluded the crash resulted from elevator overloading (not defective maintenance) and that SMG knew of prior overcrowding-related incidents but failed to staff or otherwise control elevator access after events.
- Plaintiffs proved causation and damages (medical treatment, lost wages, pain and suffering); trial court awarded substantial special and general damages to each plaintiff.
- SMG appealed liability, causation, comparative fault, and several damage items; plaintiffs answered seeking increased awards. Appellate court affirmed liability, causation, and most damage awards but reduced Kizzy Stamps’ past wages award after de novo adjustment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to control elevator access after events | SMG (manager) had custody/control of facility and thus a duty to prevent foreseeable overcrowding and attendant elevator risk | No specific legal duty to provide personnel to control elevator access; unforeseeable security-type risk | Duty exists here: prior similar incidents made the risk foreseeable and SMG had duty to control elevator operations |
| Breach and causation | SMG breached by failing to staff/monitor elevators despite known overcrowding; breach caused injuries | Accident caused by overloading, not SMG’s operational omissions; plaintiffs didn’t prove SMG’s acts were legal cause | Trial court not manifestly erroneous: breach proved and was both cause-in-fact and legal cause of injuries |
| Comparative fault | Plaintiffs: no comparative fault — no signs or attendants; unreasonable to expect patrons to police crowding | SMG: signs posted and plaintiffs/or other occupants should have limited loading | No comparative fault attributed to plaintiffs; evidence showed no attendant and uncertainty whether signs were posted |
| Damages (specific items and amounts) | Plaintiffs sought full awarded damages and in answers asked for increases | SMG challenged lost wages, future medicals, and general damages as unsupported/excessive | Appellate court largely affirmed damage awards as supported; reduced Stamps’ past lost wages after de novo recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- McCloud v. Housing Auth. of New Orleans, 987 So.2d 360 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008) (describing duty-risk analysis for negligence)
- Long v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Dev., 916 So.2d 87 (La. 2005) (elements of duty-risk negligence analysis)
- Zacher v. Harrah’s New Orleans Mgmt. Co., 136 So.3d 132 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2014) (limits on duty to provide security for unforeseeable risks)
- Manning v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 753 So.2d 163 (La. 1999) (premises owner/operator duty to exercise reasonable care)
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (manifest error standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (requirement and scope for appellate court to redetermine facts when reversible error exists)
- Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So.2d 70 (La. 2000) (deference to trial court on general damages)
- Cooper v. Bouchard Transp., 140 So.3d 1 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (future medical expenses can be established via vocational/forensic experts using medical records)