Jones v. Stewart
203 So. 3d 384
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Glenn Jones agreed to meet roof inspectors at homeowner Tammy Stewart’s house to show a leak; while in the unfinished attic he slipped on joists, fell through the ceiling, and was severely injured.
- The roof had been replaced in 2011 by SHIP with Magnolia as subcontractor; recurring leaks were inspected by Crawford; roof issues persisted.
- On the inspection day (Jan. 10, 2013) Jones entered an attic that was unfinished (no floorboards, joists 24" apart), unlit (used cell-phone lights), and had evidence of water intrusion; he testified joists appeared dark/damp before he slipped.
- Jones sued homeowner and multiple contractor defendants (SHIP, Magnolia, Crawford) for negligence; trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Contractor Defendants on the sole ground that the attic condition was open and obvious, dismissed them with prejudice, and denied Jones’ new-trial motion.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit limited review to the open-and-obvious ruling (decretal language did so) and reversed, holding the contractors failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment because material, case-specific factual issues precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of open-and-obvious doctrine to these negligence claims | Jones: doctrine is for premises-liability/owner cases and should not absolve contractors of duty to install/inspect safely | Contractors: doctrine applies generally; jurisprudence permits summary judgment when condition is open and obvious | Court: unnecessary to decide doctrinal scope; assumed doctrine applies for analysis but denied summary judgment on facts |
| Whether the attic condition was open and obvious as a matter of law | Jones: darkness made wetness of joists not apparent; factual disputes exist about visibility and danger | Contractors: active leak, visible discoloration, darkness and unfinished joists made the hazard obvious; Jones was aware of leak | Held: disputed, case-specific facts (unfinished + unlit + wet interplay) precluded finding the condition open and obvious as a matter of law |
| Burden on movants at summary judgment | Jones: disputed facts require a trial; burden never shifted because defendants didn’t establish absence of material fact | Contractors: once they showed awareness/visibility, burden shifted to Jones to rebut | Held: contractors failed to make a proper prima facie showing; burden never shifted to Jones |
| Costs/Decretal language re: appeal costs (Magnolia’s cross‑request) | Magnolia sought all appellate costs shifted to Jones | Jones sought reversal and remand | Held: appellate court reversed and remanded; declined to modify trial court’s order that each party bear its own costs and denied Magnolia’s request for appeal costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Broussard v. State of La., Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (risk-utility framework and discussion of open-and-obvious hazard under duty analysis)
- Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (summary judgment appropriate where condition is obvious to all and not unreasonably dangerous)
- Rodriguez v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 152 So.3d 871 (La. 2014) (when plaintiff was aware and could avoid hazard, burden shifts and summary judgment may be warranted)
- Allen v. Lockwood, 156 So.3d 650 (La. 2015) (clarifies that Broussard does not preclude summary judgment where no unreasonable risk exists)
- Desormeaux v. Audubon Ins. Co., 611 So.2d 818 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1992) (case recognizing poorly lit, unfinished attic may be open and obvious)
- Jimenez v. Omni Royal Orleans Hotel, 66 So.3d 528 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (example of case-specific factual issues defeating summary judgment despite ostensibly obvious hazards)