275 So. 3d 352
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Jan. 18, 2012, plaintiff Irvin Magri sat at a blackjack table at Harrah's New Orleans with his left foot/leg resting on the footrest of an adjacent empty high stool; he had a recent left knee replacement.
- Harrah's employee Nakeisha McCormick moved/pushed the empty stool while retrieving trash; Magri's foot became entangled and he alleges she "yanked" the stool multiple times after he yelled for her to stop.
- Harrah's employees provided on-site first aid; Magri later filed suit (Jan. 15, 2013) alleging negligence, failure to warn, and inadequate training.
- After a two-day bench trial (Sept. 17–18, 2018) the trial court awarded Magri $601,689.31, reduced by 30% for comparative fault; Harrah's appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed duty/risk negligence elements (duty, breach, cause-in-fact, scope of protection, damages) and affirmed: Harrah's owed a duty, breached it, the injury was within the scope of duty, and fault was apportioned 70% Harrah's / 30% Magri.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrah's owed a legal duty or whether the risk was "open and obvious" | Magri argued the risk (employee moving stool with patron's foot entangled) was not obvious to the employee and Harrah's owed a duty to protect patrons | Harrah's argued moving an empty stool was an open-and-obvious risk and thus no duty to warn/protect was owed | Court: Risk was not open-and-obvious to the employee who alone knew she would move the stool; Harrah's owed a duty of reasonable care |
| Whether Harrah's breached its duty by moving the stool without checking | Magri argued employee should have checked/seen foot and not moved stool, especially in narrow space | Harrah's argued a reasonable person need not inspect under an empty stool before moving it | Court: Factual finding Breach — employee should have examined the stool in cramped casino conditions; trial court not clearly wrong |
| Whether the injury was within scope of Harrah's duty (legal causation) | Magri argued it was foreseeable a seated patron would rest a foot on an adjacent stool and could be injured if stool yanked | Harrah's argued injury (entangled foot) was not a foreseeable risk within its duty | Court: Injury was reasonably foreseeable and within the scope of defendant's duty |
| Whether comparative fault allocation (30% to Magri) was adequate | Magri contended limited/no fault; primarily fault on Harrah's | Harrah's argued Magri should bear more fault for placing foot on empty stool | Court: Trial court's 70%/30% allocation was supported by Watson factors and not clearly wrong |
Key Cases Cited
- Rando v. ANCO Insulations, Inc., 16 So.3d 1065 (La. 2009) (duty is threshold legal question reviewed de novo)
- Chatman v. Southern Univ. at New Orleans, 197 So.3d 366 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (articulates duty/risk negligence framework and scope-of-protection analysis)
- Bufkin v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (discusses open-and-obvious hazard doctrine)
- Faucheaux v. Terrebonne Consol. Gov't, 615 So.2d 289 (La. 1993) (ease of association test for scope of duty)
- Watson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 469 So.2d 967 (La. 1985) (factors for apportioning fault)