152 So. 3d 1071
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Stevens sued the City of Shreveport and CenterPoint for injuries from a sidewalk defect on Lakeshore Drive (accident occurred April 17, 2012).
- Stevens alleged the defendants knew or should have known of the defective sidewalk condition; both defendants denied liability.
- Discovery occurred; Stevens and defendants were deposed; counsel withdrew; Stevens moved toward jury trial set for February 24, 2014.
- CenterPoint filed a motion for summary judgment October 31, 2013; the City filed its motion January 3, 2014; Stevens proceeded pro se after withdrawal.
- Motions were heard February 3, 2014; Stevens had not secured new counsel and did not file opposition; trial court granted summary judgments for CenterPoint and City.
- On appeal, Stevens argues trial court rushed proceedings and that she was not adequately represented; the court reviews the pro se filings liberally but requires proof of genuine issues of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CenterPoint custody liability | Stevens argues CenterPoint had custody of the sidewalk. | CenterPoint contends it did not own or maintain the sidewalk and had no custody. | Grant of summary judgment for CenterPoint affirmed. |
| Unreasonable risk of harm from defect | Stevens claims the sidewalk defect created an unreasonable risk of harm. | CenterPoint/City argue no genuine issue of material fact that defect was not unreasonably dangerous. | Unreasonable risk not shown; City granted summary judgment on this element. |
| Notice to public entity | City had actual or constructive notice of the defect and failed to remedy. | City lacked notice; no evidence of defect known before the incident. | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for City affirmed. |
| Open/obvious hazard doctrine | The hazard was not open and obvious to a pedestrian exercising ordinary care. | The defect was open and obvious on clear, sunny morning; no duty to protect against obvious hazard. | Court adopted open/obvious analysis; no liability; City summary judgment affirmed. |
| Pro se representation and continuance | Stevens sought continuance to obtain counsel; assertion not fully reflected in transcript. | No continuance request properly before the court; trial court acted within discretion. | No error in proceeding to consider summary judgments; liberal treatment of pro se filings but burden of proof remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 85 So.3d 593 (La. 2012) (risk-utility test for liability under 2317.1)
- Benson v. State, 124 So.3d 544 (La.App.2d Cir. 2013) (notice requirement for public entities)
- Breitling v. City of Shreveport, 12 So.3d 457 (La.App.2d Cir. 2009) (public-entity notice element in tort claims)
- Dickson v. City of Shreveport, 104 So.3d 9 (La.App.2d Cir. 2012) (open hazard/duty analysis for sidewalks)
- Williams v. Ruben Residential Properties, LLC, 58 So.3d 534 (La.App.2d Cir. 2011) (open and obvious hazards negate duty)
- Greenwood Cmty. Ctr. v. Calep, 132 So.3d 470 (La.App.2d Cir. 2014) (liberal approach to pro se pleadings)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (summary judgment burden on movant; de novo review)