Chisem v. Younger Enterprises, LLC, 114 So. 3d 620

Plaintiff injured when a Firestone garage door abruptly stopped, causing glass to fall on him.
Plaintiff named Clopay Building Products, Younger Enterprises, A Door-Works, and others as defendants.
A Door-Works moved for summary judgment, arguing it was only an inspector for Clopay and not liable for repairs.
Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of A Door-Works; plaintiff and others appealed.
Appellate review focused on whether A Door-Works owed a duty and whether summary judgment was proper under La. Code Civ. Proc. Art. 966.
Evidence showed A Door-Works contracted with Clopay, performed an initial repair, provided a four-page repair estimate, and did not receive authorization to repair; no evidence of a direct duty to the plaintiff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A Door-Works owed a duty to the plaintiff	Pltff asserts duty through installer role and notice of hazards	A Door-Works had no duty to Firestone employees; contract with Clopay and no direct duty to plaintiff	No duty shown; summary judgment affirmed
Whether there is genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment	Disputed facts about notice of hazards and Clopay’s awareness	Record shows no direct duty or sufficient link to plaintiff; material facts not in dispute	No genuine issue; judgment proper
Whether the trial court correctly applied Article 966(C)(2) burden-shifting standard	Adverse party failed to prove absence of duty or causation	Movant showed absence of essential elements; adverse party failed to produce sufficient proof	Correct application; burden shift satisfied by movant

Fontenot v. Patterson Ins., 23 So.3d 259 (La. 2009) (duty-risk analysis for causation and fault)
Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (materiality of facts; definition of material fact for trials)
Bell v. Gold Rush Casino, 893 So.2d 969 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2005) (comparative fault and notice issues; distinguishable from case at hand)