171 So. 3d 995
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Hooper leased an apartment from Val and Mary Brown from 2011–2013; a hole/rotten area in a front porch board existed when she moved in and she repeatedly asked the Browns to repair it.
- Kenneth Brown (the Browns’ son) performed at least one patch/repair before Hooper moved in; later he performed a larger replacement after she vacated.
- In September 2013 Hooper (then using crutches for a leg injury) fell on the porch and fractured her right femoral neck; she alleges the crutch either entered a hole or the rotten wood gave way.
- Hooper sued under La. Civil Code arts. 2317/2322 (owner liability for ruin/defect) asserting failure to maintain/inspect/warn; Browns moved for summary judgment arguing the hole was open and obvious to all, so no duty existed.
- Trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes about (a) the mechanics/causation of Hooper’s fall and (b) whether the defect was open and obvious to everyone; the appellate court granted supervisory review and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a duty exists when the porch defect was "open and obvious to all" | Hooper: defect may not have been open and obvious to everyone; duty therefore exists under art. 2322 | Browns: hole was visible and known to Hooper and others, so no duty to warn/protect | Denied summary judgment — disputed factual record whether defect was open and obvious to all, so duty unresolved |
| Causation / mechanics of fall (did crutch enter preexisting hole vs. rotten board collapsing) | Hooper: board gave way when she placed weight; she did not deliberately put crutch into the hole | Browns: accident resulted from crutch placed into an obvious hole or plaintiff’s inattention | Denied summary judgment — genuine factual disputes about how accident occurred; credibility for factfinder |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment given the record | Hooper: she provided testimony, affidavit, depositions and photos raising triable issues | Browns: movant bears burden; evidence shows absence of factual support for duty element | Denied summary judgment — movant did not eliminate genuine issues of material fact; nonmovant produced sufficient factual support |
| Scope of “open and obvious to all” inquiry (objective vs. plaintiff-specific) | Hooper: knowledge of some visitors does not establish global notice to everyone | Browns: Hooper knew and frequent visitors noticed it, so it was obvious | Held: Inquiry is global (objective), but record shows mixed awareness among those who encountered the porch — fact question for jury/trier |
Key Cases Cited
- Hare v. Paleo Data, 89 So.3d 380 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Catahoula Parish School Board v. Louisiana Machinery Rentals, LLC, 124 So.3d 1065 (La. 2013) (summary judgment standard)
- Broussard v. State of Louisiana, through the Office of State Buildings, 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (owner liability under art. 2322 and open-and-obvious analysis)
- Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 708 So.2d 362 (La. 1998) (defect unreasonably dangerous is mixed question for factfinder)
- Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (defendant generally owes no duty for open and obvious hazards)
- Caserta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 90 So.3d 1042 (La. 2012) (open and obvious must be to all who may encounter the hazard)
- Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 995 So.2d 1184 (La. 2008) (risk-utility balancing factors)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (obviousness/apparentness and a pedestrian’s duty to observe)
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5747, 866 So.2d 228 (La. 2004) (credibility determinations inappropriate on summary judgment)
- Allen v. Lockwood, 156 So.3d 650 (La. 2015) (summary judgment may be appropriate only when nonmovant cannot produce factual support for unreasonable-risk claim)
- Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So.2d 1146 (La. 1983) (ruinous building/defect inquiry is for jury)
- Eisenhardt v. Snook, 8 So.3d 541 (La. 2009) (pedestrian duty to see what should be seen)