185 So. 3d 835
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff James King slipped on wet tile inside the entrance of his apartment building on a rainy night and broke his leg.
- He sued the apartment owner/manager and insurer asserting claims under lease-defect (La. C.C. arts. 2696–2697) and negligence/tort provisions (La. C.C. arts. 2315, 2317, 2317.1, 2322).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff could not prove a defect or causation; for summary-judgment purposes they assumed the floor was wet.
- Evidence before the court included plaintiff’s petition and deposition and two resident eyewitness depositions; testimony described a wet/waxed tile floor, an entrance mat, rain and tracked-in puddles, and no prior incidents at that location.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants and adopted defendants’ memoranda as its reasons; plaintiff requested written reasons and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s adoption of counsel’s memorandum satisfies La. C.C.P. art. 1917 written-reasons request | King asserted he was entitled to written reasons and the court failed to provide them | Defendants relied on their memoranda which the court adopted; no specific defense on the procedural remedy | Court declined to decide whether adoption satisfies article 1917 but noted no statutory penalty for noncompliance and affirmed because review is de novo on summary judgment |
| Whether a "defect" existed under lease-vice strict liability (arts. 2696–2697) | King: wet flooring/rug constituted a defect reasonably expected to cause injury | Defendants: plaintiff cannot prove a defect or causation; no prior incidents or evidence of unsafe design/maintenance | Held: plaintiff failed to produce factual support (no expert, no prior incidents, and admitted he may not have wiped feet); no genuine issue of material fact—summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether negligence/Article 2317.1 claim survives (requiring unreasonable risk and scienter) | King: wet floor/rug created an unreasonable risk of harm | Defendants: no evidence of actual/constructive knowledge or that condition unreasonably risky | Held: insufficient evidence to meet plaintiff’s evidentiary burden at trial; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- GameStop, Inc. v. St. Mary Parish Sales and Use Tax Department, 166 So.3d 1090 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (standard of appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Rodgers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 168 So.3d 375 (La.) (summary-judgment evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to opponent)
- Thompson v. BGK Equities, Inc., 927 So.2d 351 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (definition of defect under lessor strict liability and requirement that defect—not accident alone—be proven)
- Heflin v. Am. Home Wildwood Estates, L.P., 936 So.2d 226 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (Article 2317.1 unreasonably dangerous standard and comparison to lease-defect law)