182 So. 3d 1169
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Frederick Helwig sued after falling into a hole on adjacent property during nighttime construction on November 2, 2012, alleging injuries from an unreasonably dangerous condition.
- Property owner Charles Bernard contracted H.P.B., Inc. for a car wash; Superior Plumbing was a subcontractor; construction began March 2012 and was ongoing at the time of the accident.
- Helwig alleged appellees placed scaffolding, a large dumpster, and left multiple holes that blocked his usual rear-entry path to his business, forcing him into the hole he fell into.
- At deposition Helwig admitted it was ~10:30 P.M., the area was unlit, he had no flashlight or permission to be on the property, knew construction had been ongoing and that several holes existed, but claimed he did not know about the specific hole he fell in.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the hazardous condition was open and obvious, Helwig was a trespasser who knew of the general site conditions, and Helwig produced no evidence to rebut defendants’ showing.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; on appeal the court affirmed, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the condition was open and obvious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed on unreasonably dangerous condition | Helwig: construction materials and an unmarked hole created an unreasonably dangerous condition and defendants failed to warn | Defendants: site conditions (dumpster, scaffolding, holes) were open and obvious; Helwig knew of general conditions and lacked permission to be on property | Affirmed — no genuine issue; Helwig admitted awareness of conditions; summary judgment proper |
| Applicability of open-and-obvious doctrine | Helwig: defendants should be liable despite obvious conditions; contesting doctrine's application | Defendants: hazard was open and obvious to anyone entering the site; no duty to protect against obvious hazards | Affirmed — hazard was open and obvious; defendants owed no duty under facts |
| Whether comparative fault could be assessed | Helwig implied defendants’ fault should be compared | Defendants: Helwig’s conduct (entering at night without flashlight, trespassing) negates claim | Court did not find disputed factual basis to send comparative fault to trial; summary judgment precluded further apportionment |
| Whether open-and-obvious is a question of law or fact | Helwig: issue is mixed fact and law for jury | Defendants: doctrine can be applied as a matter of law where hazard is clearly apparent | Court treated openness/apparency as dispositive here and applied doctrine as a legal conclusion on these undisputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 960 So.2d 544 (applicable summary judgment standard on de novo review)
- Detraz v. Lee, 950 So.2d 557 (elements of negligence)
- Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc., 995 So.2d 1184 (risk-utility test for dangerous conditions; role of obviousness)
- Bufkin v. Felipe’s La., LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (defendant’s duty and open-and-obvious hazard analysis)
- Babino v. Jefferson Transit, 110 So.3d 1123 (custodian liability under La. C.C. art. 2317.1)
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldg., 113 So.3d 175 (obviousness standard)
- Caserta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 90 So.3d 1042 (obvious hazard and landowner duty)
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 866 So.2d 228 (observer’s duty to notice obvious hazards)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 673 So.2d 585 (obviousness and landowner liability)