364 So.3d 8
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- On June 18, 2013, Christine Perrin slipped on wet tile after exiting a carpeted waiting area at Ochsner Baptist; the area had been cleaned, a blower fan was present, and two yellow caution signs were placed at the tiled walkways that bordered the carpet.
- Perrin photographed and diagrammed the scene; Ochsner did not dispute the photograph’s accuracy and produced the facility’s carpet-extraction manual and deposition testimony of its Environmental Services manager.
- Perrin filed suit alleging negligence/strict liability for her injuries; Ochsner moved for summary judgment arguing the hazard was open and obvious and thus no duty existed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ochsner, struck two unauthenticated documents submitted by Perrin, and denied Perrin’s motion for new trial; Perrin appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether there was any genuine issue of material fact on the duty element under the open-and-obvious doctrine and affirmed the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ochsner met its initial burden to show the hazard was open and obvious so no duty existed | Perrin: signs were confusingly placed and she personally did not see them, so a genuine issue of fact exists about obviousness | Ochsner: photograph and diagram show clear line of sight to one caution sign at each entrance and a blower—condition was open and obvious | Held for Ochsner: reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion that the warning signs and blower made the condition open and obvious |
| Whether Perrin created a material factual dispute about Ochsner’s alleged failure to follow internal procedures (insufficient signs, cleaning whole area at once, not using mats) | Perrin: Ochsner’s procedures (or deviation from them) created a concealed hazard and raised factual issues | Ochsner: manual and manager testimony show staff placed at least one sign at each entrance and no legal requirement for additional safeguards; mats not used for safety; no expert or admissible evidence contradicts Ochsner | Held for Ochsner: Perrin produced no authenticated evidence or expert proof to create a genuine dispute; counsel argument inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (open-and-obvious hazards negate duty; summary judgment appropriate when hazard is clearly marked)
- Rodriguez v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 152 So.3d 871 (La. 2014) (open-and-obvious obstacles in a parking lot do not create an unreasonable risk of harm)
- Allen v. Lockwood, 156 So.3d 650 (La. 2015) (unchanged natural terrain or apparent conditions can be open and obvious as matter of law)
- Eisenhardt v. Snook, 8 So.3d 541 (La. 2009) (application of open-and-obvious doctrine in slip-and-fall negligence context)
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (distinguishing global obviousness inquiry from a particular plaintiff’s subjective knowledge)