351 So.3d 447
La. Ct. App.2022Background
- On June 25, 2016, Rose and Melvin George attended a funeral repast at a building on SUNO's campus; the air conditioning/HVAC allegedly was not operating and created excessive heat.
- Plaintiffs allege SUNO representatives knew of the AC problem, assured guests it would be remedied and that it was safe to enter, but Mrs. George was overcome by dizziness, fell, and broke her ankle.
- Plaintiffs sued SUNO and ABC Insurance for negligence and premises liability; they later amended to add the Board of Supervisors/SUNO and the State of Louisiana.
- The State/SUNO filed an exception of no cause of action, arguing Plaintiffs’ allegations admitted the condition was open and obvious and therefore no duty existed.
- The trial court granted the exception and dismissed the suit with prejudice; the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the amended petition stated a cause of action and that open-and-obvious issues are generally for the trier of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended petition states a cause of action for negligence/premises liability | George: Petition alleges SUNO was owner/custodian, knew AC was inoperable, assured safety, failed to remedy, and that lapse caused injury | SUNO: Plaintiffs judicially admitted the AC problem, making the condition open and obvious so no duty exists | Court: Petition, construed in plaintiff's favor, alleges the elements of negligence/premises liability; states a cause of action — exception improperly granted |
| Whether an open-and-obvious condition negates duty as a matter of law on an exception of no cause of action | George: Whether a condition is open and obvious is fact-dependent and not resolved on the face of the petition | SUNO: The admission that AC was not working is dispositive that the hazard was open and obvious to all | Court: Open-and-obvious inquiry is part of risk-utility/breach analysis (mixed law and fact); not typically decided on exception of no cause of action |
| Whether plaintiffs’ alleged knowledge (or assurance by staff) constitutes a judicial confession disposing of the claim | George: Plaintiffs’ knowledge does not automatically make the condition open and obvious to everyone; global-obviousness is the test | SUNO: Plaintiffs’ pleading amounts to a judicial confession that there was an open and obvious condition | Court: Plaintiff’s alleged knowledge is not necessarily dispositive; open-and-obviousness concerns global knowledge and is a factual inquiry for the trier of fact |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate | George: Dismissal was premature because petition states a valid claim that should proceed to factual development | SUNO: Dismissal appropriate because no legal duty exists where hazard is open and obvious | Court: Dismissal with prejudice was error; reverse and remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Paladin Contractors, LLC, 314 So.3d 1128 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021) (standard for exception of no cause of action and construing petition in plaintiff's favor)
- Badeaux v. Sw. Computer Bureau, Inc., 929 So.2d 1211 (La. 2006) (function of an exception of no cause of action)
- City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Directors of Louisiana State Museum, 739 So.2d 748 (La. 1999) (all reasonable inferences made for nonmoving party)
- Broussard v. State, 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (open-and-obvious considered within risk-utility analysis; mixed question for fact-finder)
- Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 521 So.2d 1123 (La. 1988) (hazard must be open and obvious to all to negate duty)
- Reed v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 708 So.2d 362 (La. 1998) (characterizing unreasonably dangerous defect as a mixed question of law and fact)
- Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (risk-utility factors useful in evaluating obviousness and danger)
- Doe v. Smith, 913 So.2d 140 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (pleading sufficiency to state negligence cause of action)
- An Erny Girl, L.L.C. v. BCNO 4 L.L.C., 257 So.3d 212 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2018) (exception of no cause of action appropriate only when plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)