212 So. 3d 1257
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Virginia Stafford was transported as a movie extra on a Hotard charter bus to a filming location and, while exiting at a service station parking lot in Hammond, Louisiana, tripped in a hole with broken concrete and exposed rebar and injured her ankle.
- Plaintiff sued multiple defendants including Hotard; Hotard moved for summary judgment arguing it had no duty to protect passengers from unknown defects on third‑party property where it did not own or control the premises.
- Hotard submitted driver testimony and itinerary showing it dropped passengers at a location directed by the production company; the driver inspected the offload area and reported seeing no hazards before passengers disembarked.
- Plaintiff and other defendants opposed with affidavits, photographs, deposition excerpts, and certified medical records; the trial court sustained Hotard’s objection to the medical records (as not among evidence types then allowed on summary judgment) and granted Hotard summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
- Defendants appealed; plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal. The appellate court affirmed, holding Hotard owed the ordinary negligence duty of providing a reasonably safe place to exit but defendants failed to create a genuine issue of material fact showing breach. Costs were assessed to defendants/appellants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of certified medical records on summary judgment | Medical records contain statements about where the accident occurred and are relevant to show Hotard’s liability | Medical records were not among the categories of evidence permitted under the pre‑2016 version of La. C.C.P. art. 966 and thus were inadmissible | Court upheld exclusion: under the pre‑2016 rule medical records were not proper summary judgment evidence, so exclusion was proper |
| Legal duty of carrier to protect from hazards on third‑party property | Hotard had a duty to provide a reasonably safe place to exit and may bear liability for defects at the disembarkation point | Hotard had no duty to protect passengers from unknown defects on property it did not own, control, or inspect | Court held Hotard (a private common carrier) owed ordinary negligence duty to provide a reasonably safe exit, but defendants failed to show a breach |
| Existence of breach (whether factual dispute prevents summary judgment) | Evidence (photos, affidavits, deposition excerpts) raised factual disputes about location and condition of the defect and whether Hotard assumed inspection duties | Driver inspected the area, saw no hazards, and plaintiff admitted she took several steps, following production crew, before she fell | Court found no genuine issue of material fact: record did not establish Hotard breached its duty, so summary judgment was appropriate |
| Effect of plaintiff not appealing dismissal of Hotard | N/A (defendants sought reversal) | Dismissal is final; Hotard cannot be cast in judgment on plaintiff’s main demand, but its fault may be relevant for comparative fault among remaining defendants | Court noted the dismissal became final as to Hotard; remaining defendants may seek to reduce their liability by proving Hotard’s fault for comparative fault purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewed6 v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 35 So.3d 230 (La. 2010) (sets out duty‑risk analysis elements for negligence)
- Deason v. Greyhound Corp., 106 So.2d 348 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1958) (public common carriers held to highest degree of care in receiving, conveying, and setting down passengers)
- Luckette v. Bart’s on the Lake, Ltd., 602 So.2d 108 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (distinguishes private from public common carriers and applicable standard of care)
- Whitley v. Regional Transit Auth., 913 So.2d 169 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2005) (where public‑carrier standard inapplicable, ordinary negligence standard governs)
- Ricks v. City of Monroe, 26 So.3d 858 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 2009) (passenger status and carrier duty end when passenger disembarks safely; thereafter ordinary care applies)
- Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 646 So.2d 318 (La. 1994) (explains that a negative answer on duty‑risk elements defeats liability)