211 So. 3d 1212
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Cheramie and Emma Cheramie sue Port Fourchon Marina, Inc. (PFM) and Chris Moran Marina, LLC (CMM) for premises liability related to injuries on marina premises leased to CMM and sublet to BP for Deepwater Horizon cleanup.
- On Feb. 28, 2012, Cheramie fell at least 12 feet from an extension ladder braced against a wet rafter in a boat shed, sustaining injuries.
- Plaintiffs allege the leaky roof caused the rafter to be wet, making the ladder unstable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PFM and CMM, dismissing the Cheramies’ claims.
- On appeal, the court reviews de novo the propriety of summary judgment, applying a risk-utility balancing test to determine if a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm; the court presumes material facts for purposes of review.
- The court concludes the leaky roof and wet rafter provided high utility with minimal risk of harm when used ordinarily, and Cheramie’s evidence failed to establish an unreasonable risk; the judgment dismissing the claims is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did leaky roof and wet rafter create an unreasonable risk of harm? | Cheramie asserts the wet rafter made the ladder unstable, constituting a dangerous defect. | PFM/CMM contend no genuine issue on an unreasonable risk; risk-utility shows no defect. | No; premises did not present an unreasonable risk; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (risk-utility analysis governs unreasonable risk of harm)
- Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 708 So.2d 362 (La. 1998) (risk-utility balancing framework in premises cases)
- Graupmann v. Nunamaker Family Ltd. P’ship, 136 So.3d 863 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2013) (elements of custodial liability and unreasonable risk)
- Temple v. Morgan, 196 So.3d 71 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2016) (de novo review of summary judgment standards)
- Allen v. Lockwood, 156 So.3d 650 (La. 2015) (can grant summary judgment where essential facts lack evidentiary support)