Jimenez v. OMNI ROYAL ORLEANS HOTEL
66 So. 3d 528
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Water meters are beneath a sidewalk adjacent to the Omni Royal Orleans Hotel.
- As part of his duties, Randall removed the manhole cover, read the meter, and replaced the cover without placing warning cones or barriers.
- Jimenez, an observer nearby, approached the area and accidentally stepped into the uncovered manhole.
- Jimenez sued Omni for failure to warn about the open manhole; the trial court dismissed, finding the hole was open and obvious and Jimenez 100% at fault.
- We affirm the trial court after reviewing the factual findings under manifest error and conclude the hotel owed no duty to warn.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the manhole was open and obvious. | Jimenez contends the open hole was not obviously visible to him. | Omni contends the hole was open and obvious to all. | Open and obvious; no duty to warn. |
| Whether the hotel owed a duty to warn Jimenez. | Hotel's failure to warn caused Jimenez’s injury. | No duty to warn where risk is open and obvious. | No duty to warn; hotel not liable. |
| Whether the trial court’s 100% fault finding on Jimenez is effectively contributory negligence. | Finding 100% fault cloaks a contributory negligence defense. | Rule aligns with duty analysis; fault need not be quantified when none fault the defendant. | No need to quantify fault under Art. 2323 when no defendant is at fault. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eisenhardt v. Snook, 8 So. 3d 541 (La. 2009) (open/obvious hazard can negate duty to warn depending on case facts)
- Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Bd., 60 So. 3d 594 (La. 2011) (open and obvious hazards may not be unreasonably dangerous; duty depends on facts)
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5747, 866 So. 2d 228 (La. 2003) (open/obvious hazards—fact-specific; generally no duty to protect against obvious risk)
- Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 708 So. 2d 362 (La. 1998) (trial court’s fact-finder deference on defect risk and duty considerations)
- Burns v. CLK Investments V, L.L.C., 45 So. 3d 1158 (La. 2010) (analysis of open and obvious hazards and duty to warn; fact-intensive)