359 So.3d 56
La. Ct. App.2023Background
- On June 21–22, 2016, the Robertsons (with their infant) stayed at Boomtown; around 4:00 a.m. they discovered ants on them and the infant, who suffered bites.
- Plaintiffs reported the incident to the front desk; staff observed ants, a trail, and red residue behind a nightstand; Boomtown relocated the family and offered comps.
- Boomtown had contracts with Full Service Systems (housekeeping) and J&J Exterminating (monthly pest control); J&J treated the room the morning after the complaint.
- Plaintiffs sued (filed April 2017) alleging liability under La. C.C. art. 2317.1 and negligence; extensive discovery followed.
- Boomtown moved for summary judgment (Oct. 2021), arguing no knowledge/constructive knowledge of ants and that it exercised reasonable care via contractors and periodic inspections; trial court granted SJ Jan. 4, 2022.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment; one judge dissented, arguing genuine issues remained about Boomtown’s oversight of contractors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boomtown knew or should have known of ants (La. C.C. art. 2317.1) | Robertson: Boomtown should have known—no effective oversight or inspection procedures; contractors operated without Boomtown guidance | Boomtown: No reports or complaints pre-stay; contractors retained to inspect/treat; no evidence of prior ant activity | Court: No genuine issue—plaintiffs failed to show Boomtown knew or should have known; SJ affirmed |
| Whether Boomtown breached duty to exercise reasonable care / negligence (duty-risk) | Robertson: Delegation without procedures/oversight = failure to exercise reasonable care | Boomtown: Exercised reasonable care by contracting for regular housekeeping and monthly extermination and performing periodic inspections | Court: Plaintiffs failed to show substandard conduct or breach; SJ proper |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate after discovery | Robertson: Factual disputes remain about inspection policies and oversight of contractors | Boomtown: After adequate discovery, plaintiff lacks evidence on essential elements, entitling Boomtown to SJ | Court: De novo review finds no genuine issue of material fact; SJ affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; mover’s burden rules)
- Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 144 So.3d 876 (La. 2014) (definition of material and genuine issues of fact)
- Bryant v. Ray Brandt Dodge, Inc., 292 So.3d 190 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (elements under La. C.C. art. 2317.1)
- Rayfield v. Millet Motel, 185 So.3d 183 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (hotel’s duty to exercise reasonable care for guests)
- Kennedy v. Red River Entertainment of Shreveport, LLC, 245 So.3d 1098 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (duty‑risk negligence framework)
- Searile v. Ville Platte Med. Ctr., LLC, 194 So.3d 1205 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (similar ant‑infestation case affirming SJ where pest-control contract and no prior complaints existed)