174 So. 3d 123
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Espinosa, a Motel 6 guest in New Orleans East, was shot in the motel parking lot by a robber, leaving him paraplegic.
- Espinosa sued Accor Franchising North America, Bayou Hospitality, and their insurers, alleging the fence defect allowed entry and caused the injury.
- Accor and Arch moved for summary judgment, arguing Accor never controlled day-to-day motel operations and owed no duty.
- The trial court granted the summary judgment finding no genuine issue of material fact as to duty owed by Accor.
- The appellate issues center on whether Accor had direct negligence, actual authority, or apparent authority duties toward Espinosa.
- Espinosa appeals asserting there are facts showing duty through direct negligence, actual authority, or apparent authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Accor owed a duty due to direct negligence | Espinosa argues Accor knew of a defective fence and breached duty to maintain safety. | Accor did not own, operate, or control Bayou Motel, and bore no duty where it lacked custody or garde. | No direct negligence duty; no material fact supports such a duty. |
| Whether Accor had actual authority over Bayou’s operations | Espinosa contends Accor controlled day-to-day operations and safety. | Franchise documents show Bayou sole responsibility for safety and security; Accor lacked day-to-day control. | No actual authority; no material fact supports a duty based on control. |
| Whether Accor had apparent authority to bind Espinosa | Espinosa relied on Motel 6 branding; signs/logos suggested franchisor oversight. | No evidence of reliance on franchisor’s authority; plaintiff failed to prove reliance on apparent authority. | No apparent authority; no triable issue on duty under apparent authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mundy v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 609 So.2d 909 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1992) (business duty to patrons limited to foreseeability of criminal acts)
- Chaisson v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 947 So.2d 171 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2006) (duty questions consider multiple factors and foreseeability)
- Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 923 So.2d 627 (La. 2006) (duty analysis and foreseeability in tort liability)
- Marchetta ex rel. Marchetta v. CPC of Louisiana, Inc., 759 So.2d 151 (La. 2000) (independent contractor analysis for actual authority)
- Indep. Fire Ins. Co. v. Able Moving & Storage Co., Inc., 650 So.2d 750 (La. 1995) (apparent authority framework in estoppel)
- Wiley v. Sanders, 796 So.2d 51 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2001) (defect doctrine and custody/garde requirements for strict liability)