Currie v. Scottsdale Indemnity Co.
123 So. 3d 742
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Currie, a 69-year-old condo resident, knew the sidewalk in front of her unit had an uneven depression causing standing water since 2002.
- Repairs in 2002 were made to a 16-foot section, but in 2004 Currie notified the manager that an 8-foot portion remained defective and flooded after rain.
- On December 30, 2009, heavy rain created a several-inch-deep puddle in the depression; Currie chose to attempt to jump the puddle via the sidewalk instead of using an alternative muddy back-yard route.
- Currie slipped and injured herself, alleging the defendants failed to maintain, repair, inspect, or provide a safe walkway.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the condition open and obvious and thus no duty to warn, and dismissed Currie's claims.
- On appeal, Broussard v. State clarified that whether an open and obvious condition is an unreasonable risk is a fact issue, not a law issue about duty, so summary judgment may be improper where a genuine issue of breach exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sidewalk depression was an open and obvious hazard | Currie argues the depression and water were open and obvious to a reasonable person. | Defendants contend open and obvious means no breach of duty and supports summary judgment. | Open and obvious exists, but breach is a factual issue; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether Broussard changes the analysis from duty to breach for open/obvious defects | Broussard mandates misalignment of duty analysis; open/obvious is a breach issue for the fact-finder. | Broussard confirms no duty or breach can be inferred at summary judgment. | Broussard requires factual breach assessment; summary judgment reversed. |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact remain regarding breach and comparative fault | Disputed facts about the extent of the defect and whether defendant repaired it; plaintiff may bear fault. | No breach or liability given open/obvious condition and plaintiff’s conduct. | Cases require trial to resolve breach and comparative fault; remand appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings, 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (open/obvious defect analysis is a breach issue for the fact-finder, not a duty issue for the judge)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (duty analysis varies by case; open/obvious not uniformly controlling)
- Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 521 So.2d 1123 (La. 1988) (duty and danger knowledge influence open/obvious assessment)
- Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Board, 60 So.3d 594 (La. 2011) (illustrates breach vs. no duty considerations in open/obvious context)
- Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc., 995 So.2d 1184 (La. 2008) (special knowledge considerations affect open/obvious analysis)
- Eisenhardt v. Snook, 8 So.3d 541 (La. 2009) (open/obvious considerations interplayed with breach discussions)