173 So. 3d 1246
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Jan. 9, 2004, Madison alleges he was pinned between panels of an automatic Boon Edam 3‑wing revolving door at the Inter‑Continental hotel when the door stopped and a panel collapsed, causing injury.
- Inter‑Continental sued and later asserted a third‑party claim against Carolina Door, which supplied, installed, and serviced the door under a one‑year warranty/service agreement.
- Carolina Door moved for summary judgment (arguing no factual support for Madison’s negligence claims); Inter‑Continental also filed its own summary judgment motion and opposed Carolina Door’s motion.
- After the court allowed Madison 15 days to supplement his opposition, Madison filed an expert affidavit from Michael Panish (construction/door expert) opining the door was improperly installed, inspected, serviced, and not warned about its collapsing feature.
- Carolina Door sought to strike the late expert affidavit as untimely and conclusory; the trial court denied the motion to strike but granted Carolina Door’s motion for summary judgment.
- On de novo review, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment (finding genuine issues of material fact as to installation/servicing/warnings) and denied Carolina Door’s writ challenging denial of the motion to strike (no abuse of discretion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have excluded Madison’s expert affidavit as untimely or conclusory | Panish was timely disclosed after the court granted 15 days to supplement; affidavit raises factual issues | Affidavit was “eleventh‑hour,” violated pretrial disclosure, and is conclusory | Trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting the affidavit; writ denied |
| Whether Carolina Door was entitled to summary judgment on Madison’s negligence claims | Panish’s affidavit plus depositions/exhibits create genuine issues about improper installation, service, maintenance, and failure to warn | Evidence (purchase order, warranty/service records, manufacturer specs, depositions) shows door was installed, serviced, and designed to collapse as intended; no proof of Carolina Door negligence | Reversed: genuine issues of material fact exist precluding summary judgment; remanded |
| Whether the mover met its initial burden to show absence of factual support | N/A (Plaintiff’s position is that mover did not carry strict burden) | Carolina Door argued plaintiff had no factual support for essential elements | On de novo review, Carolina Door’s submissions did not exclude all doubt; burden shift unsuccessful |
| Whether the door’s collapsing feature, per manufacturer specs, precludes liability absent proof of improper servicing/installation | Door design to collapse does not negate duty to install/adjust/maintain and warn | Manufacturer specs and maintenance entries show collapsing mechanism is intended and service was performed | Collapsing feature relevant but disputed: material facts remain about settings, adjustments, and warnings; trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Schroth v. Estate of Samuel, 90 So.3d 1209 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (summary judgment review framework)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2) summary judgment evidence list)
- Richthofen v. Medina, 164 So.3d 231 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2014) (mover’s strict initial burden explained)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (genuine issue definition; courts cannot decide credibility at summary judgment)
- Smith v. Treadaway, 129 So.3d 825 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (material fact definition)
- FMC Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Prytania St. Mary Condominiums Ass’n, Inc., 117 So.3d 217 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (doubts resolved against mover)
- Provosty v. ARC Const., L.L.C., 119 So.3d 23 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (trial date a factor in excluding late evidence)
- Guillot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 50 So.3d 173 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Dufrene v. Willingham, 721 So.2d 1026 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1998) (late expert disclosure may justify exclusion; distinguished on facts here)