Nicholson v. Horseshoe Entertainment
58 So. 3d 565
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Julia Nicholson sues Horseshoe Entertainment, Louisiana Partnership for injuries from an escalator incident.
- Date/time: Oct 9, 2004, 8:00–9:80 p.m., Escalator #5 at Horseshoe; plaintiff, husband Darryl Nicholson, and friend Gary Anderson were riding.
- Plaintiff alleges escalator jerked suddenly near the top, causing a fall of 10–12 steps and injuries to right elbow/shoulder and lower back.
- Plaintiff claims Horseshoe knew or should have known of the defective condition and failed to correct it, including inadequate warnings.
- Horseshoe had a maintenance contract with ThyssenKrupp Elevator; technician Jay Jordan states no defect existed; routine maintenance five days before the incident found no problems.
- Horseshoe produced video of the accident and incident reports for Jan–Sept 2004; plaintiff sought damages for pain, medicals, mental anguish, lost wages, and enjoyment of life.
- Trial court granted Horseshoe’s summary judgment; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nicholsosn proves a defect under art. 2317.1 | Nicholson asserts a defective escalator and causation. | Horseshoe lacked proof of a defect or knowledge of one. | No genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether Horseshoe knew or should have known of the defect | Evidence of multiple incidents shows knowledge or constructive knowledge. | Incidents attributed to patron error; no prior jerking reports. | No substantial evidence of knowledge; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies | Res ipsa should infer negligence by Horseshoe. | Cannot apply; other probable causes possible. | Res ipsa not applicable; not enough to overcome summary judgment. |
| Whether daily/weekly maintenance or warnings could have prevented the injury | More frequent maintenance and warnings would prevent future harm. | Last inspection five days prior found no issues; industry standard not shown. | Plaintiff failed to prove required elements; no duty breached. |
| Whether the video or reports create a genuine issue of material fact | Video is unclear; affidavit credibility disputed. | Maintenance records show no defect; other incidents patron error. | Evidence insufficient to create a material fact; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schroeder v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 591 So.2d 342 (La.1991) (standard for evaluating summary judgment de novo)
- Costello v. Hardy, 864 So.2d 129 (La.2004) (summary judgment criteria and burden allocation)
- King v. Illinois National Insurance Company, 9 So.3d 780 (La.2009) (summary judgment evidence and burden)
- Baker v. Knapp, 42 So.3d 1044 (La.App.2d Cir.2010) (affirming summary judgment context)
- Justiss Oil Company, Inc. v. Monroe Air Center, L.L.C., 46 So.3d 725 (La.App.2d Cir.2010) (res ipsa loquitur elements and application)
- Linnear v. CenterPoint Energy Entex/Reliant Energy, 966 So.2d 36 (La.2007) (res ipsa loquitur relevance and evidence)
- Cangelosi v. Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center, 564 So.2d 654 (La.1989) (res ipsa framework elements)
- Hagood v. Brakefield, 805 So.2d 1230 (La.App.2d Cir.2002) (knowledge/notice standard for art. 2317.1)
- Riggs v. Opelousas General Hospital Trust Authority, 997 So.2d 814 (La.App.3d Cir.2008) (art. 2317.1 knowledge standard)
- Beckham v. Jungle Gym L.L.C., 37 So.3d 564 (La.App.2d Cir.2010) (art. 2317.1 defect/ownership/notice)