Roy Bufkin, Jr. v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC
2014 La. LEXIS 2257
La.2014Background
- Pedestrian Royce Bufkin attempted to cross a one-way French Quarter street at mid-block adjacent to a large dumpster placed by Shamrock Construction during sidewalk closure for renovations at 622 Conti Street; a bicyclist riding the wrong way struck him.
- Shamrock had leased three parking spaces, placed a 30-yard dumpster occupying them, and posted a prominent "SIDEWALK CLOSED / PLEASE USE OTHER SIDEWALK" sign with a directional arrow; no mid-block crosswalk was provided.
- Bufkin admitted he knew of the dumpster for months, followed other pedestrians crossing mid-block, and failed to look to his right before stepping out from behind the dumpster.
- Shamrock moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to warn of an open-and-obvious obstruction; the district court denied the motion, finding a factual dispute about adequacy of warnings.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed de novo and held the dumpster was an obvious, apparent, and not unreasonably dangerous condition, so Shamrock owed no duty to provide additional warnings or buffers; summary judgment for Shamrock was rendered and the district court judgment reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shamrock owed a duty to warn/pedestrian-protect for the dumpster obstruction | Dumpster created a "blind spot" mid-block; inadequate sign should have warned of the obstruction or directed crossing at corner; defendant should have installed buffers/fencing | Dumpster was open and obvious, comparable to a large vehicle; no duty to warn of an obvious condition | No duty owed; dumpster was obvious and not unreasonably dangerous; summary judgment for Shamrock |
| Whether placement of dumpster made sidewalk condition unreasonably dangerous | Placement funneled pedestrians into mid-block crossing and created an unreasonable vision obstruction | Sidewalk closure and dumpster served legitimate construction utility; risk was obvious and avoidable | Not unreasonably dangerous under risk-utility balancing; utility and obviousness favor defendant |
| Adequacy of evidentiary support to overcome summary judgment | Plaintiff relied on his deposition and photos to show dispute about warning adequacy and obstruction | Defendant produced affidavit, photos, and evidence of signage and dumpster size; pointed to plaintiff's lack of admissible contrary evidence | Plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence creating genuine issue; summary judgment appropriate |
| Standard for duty when condition is open and obvious | Open-ness does not automatically eliminate liability if condition creates unusual blind spot | Open-and-obvious hazards generally do not impose a duty to warn; court decides as matter of law when obvious | Court concluded as matter of law dumpster was open and obvious; no duty owed |
Key Cases Cited
- Catahoula Parish School Board v. Louisiana Machinery Rentals, LLC, 124 So.3d 1065 (La. 2013) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Christy v. McCalla, 79 So.3d 293 (La. 2011) (duty-risk analysis elements for negligence)
- Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Company, 816 So.2d 270 (La. 2002) (duty-risk framework authority)
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings, 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (risk-utility balancing and obviousness factor)
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5747, 866 So.2d 228 (La. 2004) (pedestrian duty to observe obvious hazards)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech. Univ., 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (obviousness and apparentness bear on unreasonable-danger inquiry)
- Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 995 So.2d 1184 (La. 2008) (summary judgment when plaintiff cannot produce necessary evidentiary support)
- Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Bd., 60 So.3d 594 (La. 2011) (open-and-obvious risk may negate duty)