91 So. 3d 540
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege premises liability after Mrs. Labit, elderly, tripped on an unpainted wheel stop in a dimly lit handicapped parking area near The Palms Casino.
- Wheel stop located in front of a handicapped space; driver’s side was entering the vehicle when she fell on the wheel stop opposite the van.
- Defendants are The Palms Casino & Truck Stop, Inc., J & R Amusement Co., Inc., and Delmas Bosarge d/b/a Bosarge Striping Service; each moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants; plaintiffs appealed.
- Court conducts de novo review of summary-judgment record and applies duty and risk standards for premises negligence; majority affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty owed by premises owners | Labit owed a duty to be safe as an invitee; wheel stop and lighting created risk. | No duty breached; unpainted wheel stop not shown to be an unreasonable risk; standards not violated. | No genuine issue of material fact; defendants owed no duty breached; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Unreasonable risk of harm from wheel stop | Unpainted wheel stop in dim lighting posed unreasonable risk, especially to elderly. | No evidence unpainted stop created an unreasonable risk under applicable standards; painting not required by code. | Unpainted wheel stop did not create unreasonable risk as a matter of law; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Bosarge’s duty to third parties | Bosarge should have warned or informed about hazards; owed duty to Labit. | Bosarge’s duty was to the contractor; no evidence he created a hazardous condition or owed third parties a duty. | Bosarge entitled to summary judgment; no duty to Labit shown. |
| Palms Casino’s duty to maintain lighting/visibility | Insufficient lighting and conspicuity of wheel stop; foreseeability of risk; ADA considerations. | No code requiring painting; supporting affidavits show compliance with codes. | No material fact issues; Palms’ motion granted. |
| Material facts preclude summary judgment | Conflicting testimony about lighting, duration, and what caused fall; elderly witness considerations. | Record shows lighting was dim but no duty breach proven. | Genuine issues remain; however, as to majority defendants, the court still grants summary judgments. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCloud v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 987 So.2d 360 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2008) (premises liability; unreasonable risk of harm; duty—fact-specific analysis)
- Doane v. Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Inc., 697 So.2d 309 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1997) (summary judgment where no evidence of unreasonable danger or standards breached)
- Eisenhardt v. Snook, 8 So.3d 541 (La. 2009) (open/obvious hazards; duty depends on visibility and reasonableness of danger)
- Doe v. Hawkins, 42 So.3d 1000 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (invitee duty; premises safety; reasonable care standard)
- Harris v. Pizza Hut of La., Inc., 455 So.2d 1364 (La. 1984) (premises liability—duty to patrons to maintain reasonably safe premises)