97 So. 3d 470
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ms. Henry, 74, was injured when she fell on carpet in NOHSC Houma # 1, L.L.C. restaurant on March 13, 2008, while using a cane; she fell returning from the counter to her table after placing an order.
- Defendants NOHSC and Colony moved for summary judgment, supported by their affidavits and photos; Henrys opposed with additional affidavits and deposition excerpts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, struck Henrys’ opposing affidavits as untimely, and dismissed the claims with prejudice; judgment dated June 30, 2010; Henrys sought a new trial which was denied.
- The appellate court affirmed, ruling there was no genuine issue of material fact that the carpet created an unreasonable risk of harm, NOHSC had no sufficient notice of a dangerous condition, and summary judgment was proper under Louisiana law.
- The court also described the relevant burden-shifting framework for motions for summary judgment and cited applicable statutes and precedents concerning merchant liability and premises liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the carpet’s condition posed an unreasonable risk | Henry contends uneven carpet fibers created danger | Carpet is new, properly installed; no unsafe condition | No genuine issue; no unreasonable risk established |
| Whether NOHSC had notice of the risk | NOHSC chose the carpet and thus presumed knowledge | No prior incidents or complaints; no notice shown | No genuine issue; no notice proven |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the record | Evidence creates factual questions precluding summary judgment | Record shows absence of material fact; movant entitled to judgment | Summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 11/29/2006) (standard for motion for summary judgment; de novo review)
- Costello v. Hardy, 864 So.2d 129 (La. 1/21/2004) (summary judgment burden on movant; burdens shifting under Art. 966)
- Pugh v. St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd., 994 So.2d 95 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2008) (absence of factual support requires grant of motion)
- Gisclair v. Bonneval, 928 So.2d 39 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2005) (timeliness of opposing affidavits; Art. 966(B) consequences)
- Buggage v. Volks Constructors, 928 So.2d 536 (La. 2006) (mandatory time limits for oppositions to motions for summary judgment)