Richardson v. LOUISIANA-1 GAMING
55 So. 3d 893
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Patricia Richardson sued Louisiana-1 Gaming, Pinnacle Entertainment, and Boomtown LLC after allegedly slipping on a die on the Boomtown Casino floor.
- Plaintiff.claimed the die created a dangerous condition on the premises that caused her fall while walking to an escalator.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue of material fact and no breach of duty or knowledge of the die.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, dismissing Richardson's suit with prejudice, applying an assumption-of-risk rationale.
- Appellate review addressed whether summary judgment was appropriate under La. C.C.P. art. 966 and whether assumption-of-risk doctrine or constructive knowledge issues applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assumption of risk governs the case | Richardson argues the doctrine is abolished and not applicable. | Boomtown contends the court properly applied assumption of risk. | Assumption of risk abolished; not applicable. |
| Whether the casino owed a duty with reasonable care given the die condition | Die created an unreasonable risk foreseeable to defendants. | If the die caused the fall, the casino lacked notice and wide duty to foresee. | No material duty breach proven; not enough to defeat summary judgment. |
| Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding notice | Die leaving the table was a repeated, foreseeable hazard. | Die landed on floor simultaneously with plaintiff, negating constructive notice. | Constructive notice not proven; die existed only momentarily. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Horseshoe Entertainment, 823 So.2d 1124 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2002) (premises liability not insurer of safety; reasonable care required)
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (constructive notice requires condition existed for some period prior)
- Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 521 So.2d 1123 (La. 1988) (assumption of risk historically used in sports/premises context)
- Rowell v. Hollywood Casino Shreveport, 996 So.2d 476 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (casino as merchant under negligence statute 9:2800.6)
- Callis v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Service, Dist. #1, 975 So.2d 641 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework under Article 966)