261 So. 3d 921
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Mona James slipped and fell at Our Lady of Lourdes Regional Medical Center on December 23, 2014 and sued the hospital on November 12, 2015.
- Lourdes answered denying notice of any hazardous condition, invoking the notice requirement of La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B).
- After discovery, Lourdes moved for summary judgment (May 25, 2017), submitting James’s deposition (she could not identify the source or duration of the substance) and affidavits showing routine cleaning and no reports of spills.
- Days before the summary judgment hearing, James sought a continuance and leave to amend to add a spoliation claim (loss of video evidence); the trial court denied both requests without a hearing.
- The trial court granted Lourdes’s motion and dismissed James’s claim with prejudice; James appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of continuance and leave to amend without a hearing was erroneous | James argued the motions were improperly denied without a hearing, depriving her of ability to amend and obtain evidence | Lourdes effectively did not contest the continuance; trial court had discretion to deny for untimeliness and lack of diligence | Denial affirmed: court found no abuse of discretion; hearing not required where motion was not contested |
| Whether summary judgment was improper given inability to prove notice element under La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B) | James sought to amend to plead spoliation to excuse lack of notice evidence (lost video) | Lourdes showed absence of evidence of notice; movant pointed to record showing James could not meet the notice element | Affirmed: James admitted she could not prove notice; summary judgment proper because she failed to produce factual support for an essential element |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Royal Ins. Co., 704 So.2d 424 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (hearing not required on continuance when opposing party does not contest)
- Segura v. Andries, 610 So.2d 188 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (trial court abused discretion denying continuance without hearing), reversed, 612 So.2d 105 (La.) (supreme court decision addressing continuance denial)
- Succession of Harrell v. Erris-Omega Plantation, Inc., 104 So.3d 751 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (factors and discretion governing continuance requests)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La.) (de novo review and standard for summary judgment)
- MaClaff, Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co., 978 So.2d 482 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (movant need only show absence of factual support for an essential element)