206 So. 3d 369
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Audrey Nugent sued Car Town of Monroe, Inc. and West Monroe Land Development Co. after she stumbled on a 7½-inch drop at Car Town’s front door and claimed neck and back injuries.
- The building was originally a 1960s–70s service station; the front threshold predated modern codes and had existed without reported incidents since defendants acquired the property in 1989.
- Nugent admitted she saw the threshold entering, was momentarily distracted by a conversation, then stepped out and stumbled over the drop-off.
- Plaintiff’s expert (safety professional) testified the step was dangerous and noncompliant with current codes; defense expert (engineer) testified the step was code-compliant when built, not unreasonably dangerous, and similar noncompliant steps existed elsewhere.
- A 12-member jury found the drop-off was not an unreasonably dangerous condition (9–3 vote). The trial court granted a new trial, but the appellate court granted supervisory review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict was clearly contrary to law and evidence warranting a new trial under La. C.C.P. art. 1972(1) | Nugent: verdict unsupported; court should grant new trial because step posed unreasonable risk and was easily remediable | Defendants: verdict is supported by competing evidence; new trial not justified where any fair interpretation supports jury | Court: Trial court abused discretion; verdict was supportable by a fair interpretation of evidence, so no new trial |
| Whether the 7½" drop-off constituted an "unreasonably dangerous" condition under Art. 2317.1 / 2322 | Nugent: drop-off was obvious, dangerous, and easily remediable; precedent holds similar drops were unreasonable | Defendants: step complied with codes when built, no history of prior incidents, experts disputed danger | Court: Fact-specific; reasonable juror could find no unreasonable risk given code history, utility, lack of prior incidents, and competing expert testimony |
| Whether a duty to warn existed absent finding of an unreasonably dangerous condition | Nugent: defendants should have warned or posted signs; low cost of warning | Defendants: duty to warn arises only if condition is unreasonably dangerous | Court: No duty to warn where condition not found unreasonably dangerous; trial court erred applying a stand-alone warning duty |
| Whether compliance with codes at time of construction is dispositive ("original condition" argument under Art. 2322) | Nugent: reference to "original condition" allows liability even if condition complied when built | Defendants: buildings grandfathered; no obligation to upgrade unless major renovation | Court: "Original condition" does not impose liability merely because codes later changed; compliance at construction is one factor in risk-utility analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 774 So.2d 84 (La. 2000) (verdict should not be set aside if supportable by any fair interpretation of evidence)
- Guillory v. Lee, 16 So.3d 1104 (La. 2009) (trial court must exercise caution in granting new trial that overturns jury fact-finding)
- Broussard v. State, 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (articulates risk-utility factors for determining "unreasonable risk of harm")
- Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 85 So.3d 593 (La. 2012) (absence of prior incidents is a valid consideration in unreasonable-risk analysis)
- Luminais v. O.R.S.T., Inc., 951 So.2d 1200 (La. App. 6 Cir.) (preexisting nonconforming structures are not required to meet new codes absent major renovation)