86 So. 3d 634
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Amber Drury and Winkler were plaintiffs in consolidated suits arising from an Oct. 14, 2005 auto collision with Harold Vega at the Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Lake Villa Avenue intersection; Amber was crossing; Vega allegedly intoxicated; Amber and Winkler injured.
- Parish of Jefferson and DOTD moved for summary judgment, arguing Amber disregarded the stop sign and that plaintiffs failed to prove 9:2800 notice; discovery and admissions later suggested parish involvement with the bus stop placement.
- Parish attached a police report and a civil engineer’s affidavit asserting proper design and sight distance; plaintiffs offered an expert report alleging obstructed sight lines by the bus stop, foliage, and bushes.
- Partial settlements dismissed Vega and Alstate; remaining parties included the Parish on the 9:2800 issue; trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Parish on Oct. 6, 2010.
- Addendum after hearing revealed parish admissions about bus stop location and maintenance contracts; these facts raised genuine issues of material fact.
- Court of appeal reversed and remanded, finding issues of notice and defect require factual development and that some summary judgment evidence was improper or incomplete to resolve causation and notice as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parish had actual or constructive notice of an unreasonably dangerous condition. | Drury contends Parish knew/should have known of the bus stop obstruction. | Parish argues no proven actual or constructive notice; evidence insufficient. | Remanded; issue framed as fact-dependent; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether the bus stop placement constitutes a defect causing the accident. | Griffith reports obstructed sight lines due to bus stop and foliage. | Ivey affidavit finds sight distance adequate and stop sign compliance sufficient. | Material facts unresolved; remand to determine defect and causation. |
| Whether the trial court properly excluded evidence (police report, unsworn documents) on summary judgment. | Evidence should be admissible to support notice and causation. | Police report and unsworn documents cannot support summary judgment; only sworn evidence may. | Reversed; evidence was improperly discounted and remand for proper evidentiary treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C., 920 So.2d 251 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2005) (reaffirming de novo review and evidentiary standards on summary judgment)
- Janney v. Pearce, 40 So.3d 285 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2010) (discusses appellate review and evidence standards on summary judgment)
- Jones v. Gray Ins. Co., 980 So.2d 1 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2008) (supports analysis of notice and fact-specific causation issues)
- Warden v. Richoux, 40 So.3d 139 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2010) (cites Fuselier v. Matranga regarding duty and notice concepts)
- Duperclay v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 892 So.2d 124 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2004) (discusses evidentiary standards and notice concepts in public duty cases)
- Estate of Loveless ex rel. Loveless v. Gay, 945 So.2d 233 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 2006) (addressing notice and defect causation in public roadway cases)