331 So.3d 368
La. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Robert Lomax, a Coca‑Cola delivery driver, fell into an uncovered mechanic’s pit at the RTA bus maintenance facility while delivering an ~800 lb vending machine on April 10, 2017.
- Lomax and a coworker (Terrell Spenser) pre‑inspected the route, placed the machine on a pallet jack, and Lomax walked backwards pulling the jack when he stepped into the pit and was injured.
- Photographs and testimony show Bus #198 was parked in bay #18, partially covering the pit and leaving an estimated 3–4 foot gap between the bus front and the pit.
- Defendants (Transdev, RTA, Veolia) moved for summary judgment arguing the pit was an open-and-obvious hazard and Lomax’s backward walking was the sole cause.
- The trial court struck some of Lomax’s exhibits, granted summary judgment for defendants, and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding genuine issues of material fact remained about defect, obviousness, and causation under La. C.C. art. 2317.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mechanic’s pit (including the 3–4 ft gap created by the partially parked bus) was an open and obvious condition that negates duty | Lomax: the gap created by the partially parked bus, the pit’s proximity to a delivery path, and ambivalent visibility create factual disputes about unreasonable risk | Transdev: pits are marked/visible; Lomax knew pits existed and simply didn’t look, so condition was open and obvious | Reversed trial court: factual disputes exist whether the gap/pit created an unreasonable risk — summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether Lomax’s conduct (walking backward pulling an 800 lb machine) was the sole cause that bars recovery | Lomax: his conduct may be a factor but not necessarily sole cause; comparative fault applies | Transdev: Lomax’s backward walking caused the accident and should bar recovery as matter of law | Court: plaintiff’s conduct raises comparative‑fault issues for trial; cannot be resolved as sole cause on summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment burden shifting was proper given the evidence | Lomax: defendants failed to make a prima facie showing; factual disputes remain | Transdev: introduced depositions, photos, and affidavit to show absence of material fact | Court: defendants did not establish an absence of factual dispute on obviousness/causation; burden never shifted to Lomax |
Key Cases Cited
- Bufkin v. Felipe's La., LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (sets out risk‑utility test and treats obviousness as part of that analysis)
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 866 So.2d 228 (La. 2004) (an obvious condition may still require case‑specific factual analysis)
- Warren v. Kenny, 64 So.3d 841 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (reversed SJ where plaintiff fell while moving backward; comparative fault for jury)
- Cox v. Baker Distrib. Co., L.L.C., 244 So.3d 681 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2017) (gap plus surrounding conditions can create fact issues precluding SJ)
- Jones v. Stewart, 203 So.3d 384 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (SJ on obviousness only proper when no material factual disputes)
- Renwick v. PNK Lake Charles, L.L.C., 901 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 2018) (distinguishes plaintiff’s actual knowledge for comparative fault from open‑and‑obvious analysis)