Maddox v. Howard Hughes Corp.
268 So. 3d 333
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Nov. 29, 2014, Maddox slipped and fell descending a non-moving escalator at Riverwalk Shopping Center after leaving a restaurant where she had been helping her daughter. The mall had closed earlier but patrons remained.
- Cleaning machines had deposited water earlier in the area; Maddox testified she did not see any substance on the escalator and later abandoned any claim that a substance caused her fall.
- Maddox sued Howard Hughes (owner/operator of Riverwalk) alleging premises and product-defect theories (La. C.C. arts. 2317/2317.1) and merchant liability; she also invoked res ipsa loquitur.
- Howard Hughes moved for summary judgment, arguing Maddox cannot identify any defect that caused her fall; her deposition repeatedly states she does not know the cause.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the court of appeal granted supervisory writ, reviewed de novo, and reversed—rendering summary judgment dismissing Maddox’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maddox can prove a defect in the escalator (essential element) | Non-moving escalator is inherently dangerous; owner should have foreseen use and posted warnings | Maddox cannot identify or describe any defect; deposition shows no knowledge of cause | Howard Hughes met initial burden; Maddox offered no factual support; no genuine issue of material fact — summary judgment for Howard Hughes |
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur | Fall itself supports inference of negligence (i.e., defect) | Res ipsa requires unusual circumstances; ordinary falls do not trigger inference | Res ipsa inapplicable: first requirement (unusual circumstances) not met; doctrine sparingly applied |
| Causation (cause-in-fact between alleged defect and injury) | Use of shut-down escalator caused fall; proximate cause through unreasonable risk | No alleged defect identified; thus no causal link | Without proof of defect, causation fails — element unmet |
| Merchant liability under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 | Mall owner liable as merchant for unsafe condition | Mall owner is not a "merchant" under statute | Merchant-liability statute inapposite; mall owner not a merchant under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (summary judgment and definition of a "genuine issue" for trial)
- Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355 (La. 1992) (res ipsa loquitur requirements)
- Linnear v. CenterPoint Energy Entex/Reliant Energy, 966 So.2d 36 (La. 2007) (res ipsa not applicable to ordinary accidents like falls)
- Reed v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 843 So.2d 588 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2003) (slip-and-fall alone insufficient to show premises unreasonably dangerous)
- Conner v. Kraemer-Shows Oilfield Servs., LLC, 33 F.Supp.3d 725 (W.D. La. 2014) (definition of "defect" under Art. 2317.1)