Moore v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 186 So. 3d 135

Background

On Nov. 28, 2011, plaintiff Henry Moore exited a Murphy Oil convenience store and caught his right foot on the exposed black corner of a plastic pallet used for a bottled-water display outside the single outward-swinging exit door; he stumbled but did not fall and later sought medical treatment.
Some two-gallon jugs were missing from the bottom tier, leaving the black corner exposed and protruding several inches beyond a painted yellow line adjacent to the door; Moore testified his view when exiting was partially obscured by window advertising and interior displays.
Moore sued Murphy Oil and its insurer under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 alleging the display created an unreasonably dangerous condition; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the display was open-and-obvious and not the cause of the incident.
The trial court denied summary judgment, held after a bench trial that the pallet encroached on the walkway and created an unreasonably dangerous condition, found the defendants liable, allocated 25% fault to Moore, and awarded $37,500 (judgment later amended to identify defendants and joint liability).
On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed: it maintained the appeal after correcting the decretal language, allowed supplementation of the record with the summary-judgment hearing transcript, upheld denial of summary judgment, affirmed liability findings and the comparative-fault allocation, and rejected defendants’ claim for a med-pay offset.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judgment contained sufficient decretal language for appeal	N/A — asked court to maintain appeal after amendment	Judgment initially failed to identify against whom relief was awarded	Amended judgment (naming Murphy Oil and Liberty Mutual, joint and in solido) cured defect; appeal maintained
Whether the record should be supplemented with the summary-judgment hearing transcript	N/A — opposed? not material	Transcript of the summary-judgment hearing is material because denial is reviewed on appeal from final judgment	Court granted unopposed motion to supplement the record with that transcript
Whether summary judgment was proper because the display was open and obvious / not unreasonably dangerous	The corner was not obvious when exiting due to obscuring signs and missing bottom merchandise; factual issues exist	Display was large and obvious; Moore admitted seeing it entering and not watching when exiting; thus no duty	Court performed de novo review and held summary judgment properly denied — genuine issues of material fact existed about whether the protruding pallet corner was open and obvious and whether it created an unreasonable risk
Whether trial court erred in finding liability, allocating 25% fault to Moore, and refusing med-pay offset	The pallet created an unreasonably dangerous condition; Moore partly at fault but entitled to award; stipulation did not require deducting med-pay	Display was open and obvious; Moore failed to exercise ordinary care; med-pay should offset award	Appellate court found factual findings not manifestly erroneous, affirmed liability and 25% comparative fault, and held no record basis to offset the award by med-pay

Key Cases Cited

Conley v. Plantation Mgmt. Co., L.L.C., 117 So.3d 542 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2013) (final-judgment decretal-language requirements and enforceability)
Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (risk-utility test and open-and-obvious analysis for unreasonable-risk determinations)
Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, L.L.C., 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (clarifying that open-and-obvious conditions can support summary judgment in appropriate cases)
Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard that appellate courts will not overturn factfinder where two permissible views of evidence exist)
Watson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 469 So.2d 967 (La. 1985) (factors for allocating comparative fault)