315 So.3d 342
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- On June 10, 2017, Gerald Bercy slipped and fell while descending three wooden exterior steps leading from the back door of a home owned by 337 Brooklyn, LLC; he was helping grill at a gathering.
- The steps and adjoining deck were the same color, had no handrail, and the individual steps varied in tread width and riser height.
- Bercy sued the owner alleging the stairs were an unreasonably dangerous defect (failure to discover/correct/warn). 337 Brooklyn moved for summary judgment, arguing no actionable defect, the hazard was open and obvious, and Bercy could not prove causation.
- Bercy opposed with an engineer’s report (Warren L. Dietz) identifying violations of the 1969 Standard Building Code: lack of handrails, lack of tread/deck contrast, and inconsistent tread/riser dimensions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for 337 Brooklyn, finding the condition open and obvious and that Bercy failed to establish causation; Bercy appealed.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding genuine issues of material fact exist on causation and whether the condition was open and obvious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bercy produced evidence that a defect in the stairs caused his fall (causation) | Dietz’s engineering report showing code violations could have contributed to the fall | No proof defect caused the fall; Bercy’s familiarity and intoxication explain accident | Reversed: expert report creates genuine issue of material fact as to causation; causation is fact-intensive for the trier of fact |
| Whether the stairs’ condition was open and obvious such that no unreasonable risk existed (duty) | Code violations (no handrail, no tread contrast, uneven steps) raise a factual dispute whether the hazard was unreasonably dangerous and not merely open and obvious | Photographs and Bercy’s testimony showing prior use show the condition was obvious to him and therefore not a dangerous defect | Reversed: expert evidence creates a genuine issue whether condition was unreasonably dangerous and whether it was open and obvious to everyone; summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Maddox v. Howard Hughes Corp., 268 So.3d 333 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2019) (standards for defect and causation in premises liability contexts)
- Fiveash v. Pat O’Brien’s Bar, Inc., 201 So.3d 912 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (summary judgment cannot resolve credibility or weigh evidence)
- Quinn v. RISO Invest., Inc., 869 So.2d 922 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (limitations on court inquiry at summary judgment)
- Broussard’s v. State of Louisiana through the Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (owner liability for ruinous building or defective component part; open-and-obvious considerations)
- Bufkin v. Felipe’s, LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (consideration of obviousness and apparentness when assessing unreasonable risk)
- Dupre v. Saenger Arts Ctr., Inc., 508 So.2d 837 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1987) (expert testimony on lack of handrails can create genuine issue of an unreasonably dangerous condition)