252 So. 3d 559
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Dec. 16, 2015, Linda Cangelosi slipped and fell stepping from the roadway onto a wet stamped-concrete walkway under the casino's porte cochere; video shows puddles and rainfall.
- Cangelosi used valet, walked across two traffic lanes, was wearing open-back croc-style shoes with minimal tread, and admitted she knew it had rained and the ground was wet.
- She sued Treasure Chest Casino for damages, alleging the walkway was defective/unreasonably dangerous (improper drainage, contaminants, water tracked by vehicles).
- Treasure Chest moved for summary judgment, producing evidence the walkway had a non-skid SharkGrip additive, employee affidavits showing thousands entered that day without complaint, interrogatory responses identifying the non-skid coating, and the fall video.
- The trial court granted Treasure Chest’s summary judgment and denied other motions; Cangelosi appealed pro se. Appellate court affirms summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should appeal be dismissed for nonconforming pro se brief? | Brief omitted required elements; move to dismiss/strike. | Rule violation does not mandate dismissal; strike/amend discretionary. | Court declined dismissal; considered pro se brief on merits. |
| Was denial of motion to release flash drive (video) reversible? | Lacked access to flash drive hindered preparation of appeal. | Video and flash drive were already in the record; appellant could view record but did not request to do so. | No merit; record contains video so denial not reversible. |
| Did Treasure Chest have liability for an unreasonably dangerous defect (summary judgment)? | Walkway had improper drainage and contaminants (oils, dirt); water tracked by vehicles created hidden hazard; therefore genuine issue of material fact. | Plaintiff slipped on obvious puddle in rainy weather; surface had non-skid treatment; no evidence of contaminants or complaints; no proof Treasure Chest knew or should have known of a defect. | Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiff offered no evidence of a defect creating an unreasonable risk of harm; hazard (wet/puddle) was obvious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boutall v. Christakis, P.M., Co. LLC, 236 So.3d 1268 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2017) (summary judgment standards and burden analysis)
- Brown v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 791 So.2d 74 (La. 2001) (appellate review of summary judgment)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (standard for unreasonable risk of harm under article 2317.1)
- Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 708 So.2d 362 (La. 1998) (landowner liability and obviousness of hazard in trip-and-fall cases)