262 So. 3d 977
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Cassandra Smith sued the State/DOTD after tripping on a rug at the Crescent City Connection building entrance on March 14, 2008, alleging serious injuries.
- DOTD moved for summary judgment arguing it had no actual or constructive notice of a dangerous rug.
- DOTD introduced affidavits from safety officers stating building incident logs (1987–Apr 2008) showed only one unrelated slip-and-fall and no reports about the rug.
- Smith produced deposition testimony from receptionist Lynell Parker that, during the month before the accident, the entry rug sometimes puckered or bent and Parker occasionally straightened it.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for DOTD; on appeal the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding a genuine factual dispute on constructive notice and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOTD had actual or constructive notice of a defective rug under La. R.S. 9:2800 | Smith: Parker's testimony shows the rug tended to pucker during the month before the fall, supporting constructive notice | DOTD: Logs and affidavits show no reports or knowledge of a rug hazard, so no actual or constructive notice | Reversed: Parker's testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact as to constructive notice; summary judgment improper |
| Whether plaintiff established causation relevant to DOTD's summary-judgment grounds | Smith: Causation tied to existence of defect (puckered rug) causing the fall | DOTD: Employee testimony that rug was flat right before fall undermines causation | Court: Causation evidence relates to a different element; DOTD moved only on notice, so trial-court reliance on causation was improper |
| Proper scope of summary-judgment ruling | Smith: Summary judgment should be limited to issues raised by the motion (notice) | DOTD: sought dismissal based on lack of notice | Held: Under La. C.C.P. art. 966(F), summary judgment cannot be granted on issues outside the motion—trial court erred by deciding causation issue |
| Standard of review and burden on summary judgment | Smith: disputes are triable issues for jury when reasonable minds could differ | DOTD: movant need only show absence of factual support for an essential element (notice) | Held: De novo review applies; because DOTD did not negate notice and evidence showed factual dispute, summary judgment was inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 123 So.3d 787 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Board of Comm'rs of Port of New Orleans v. City of New Orleans, 135 So.3d 821 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (definition of "genuine" issue and when summary judgment is proper)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La.) (limitations on credibility determinations and weighing evidence at summary judgment)
- Bridgewater v. New Orleans Regional Transit Auth., 190 So.3d 408 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (elements required to recover under La. R.S. 9:2800)
- Gardner v. Louisiana Superdome, 144 So.3d 1105 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (constructive notice requires condition to have existed long enough that defendant should have known)
- Lewis v. Jazz Casino Co., 245 So.3d 68 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (period sufficient for constructive notice is a factual question for the jury)
- Jones v. Stewart, 203 So.3d 384 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (application of statutory amendment timing to pending summary-judgment motions)
- Hanson v. Benelli, 719 So.2d 627 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (standard for establishing actual notice to a public entity)