254 So. 3d 1254
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On May 25, 2011, Doris Stogner slipped and fell in the atrium of Ochsner Clinic Foundation while accompanying a friend; security observed a liquid on the floor and no caution signs.
- Stogner sued Ochsner (and later Anthony's Landscaping and its insurer), alleging negligence and res ipsa loquitur based on a foreign substance on the floor causing injury.
- Anthony's Landscaping was alleged to provide plant maintenance at the facility; facts about who was working and whether sprays were used conflicted among witnesses.
- Ochsner moved for summary judgment contending it had reasonable inspection procedures and that, if the liquid came from Anthony's Landscaping, it was an independent contractor not liable for that conduct.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Ochsner; the court of appeal reviewed de novo and vacated the judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact about the liquid's source and the adequacy/enforcement of Ochsner’s inspection procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ochsner carried its burden to show it acted reasonably to discover/correct the hazardous condition | Stogner: genuine dispute whether Ochsner followed/enforced its inspection procedures and whether those procedures were adequate | Ochsner: had established routine inspection procedures (police tech ~30 mins; zone coordinator 1–2 hrs) and thus acted reasonably | Court: Issue of fact exists; affidavit alone insufficient to prove reasonableness or enforcement; remand for trial |
| Whether the liquid's source was Anthony's Landscaping (independent-contractor defense) | Stogner: evidence does not clearly show landscaping caused spill; witnesses conflict on who was working and what they were doing | Ochsner: landscaping likely caused spill and is an independent contractor, excusing Ochsner's liability | Court: Source disputed; credibility/weighing required—cannot be resolved on summary judgment |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment where reasonableness and credibility dispute exist | Stogner: summary judgment improper because factual disputes remain about inspections and source | Ochsner: factual record supports judgment as a matter of law | Court: Summary judgment inappropriate where reasonable minds could differ about key facts; reversible error |
| Applicability of public-entity notice statute | N/A | Ochsner noted no public-entity protections apply | Court: Agreed statute inapplicable because Ochsner is not a public entity |
Key Cases Cited
- Batiste v. United Fire & Casualty Co., 241 So.3d 491 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Boros v. Lobell, 176 So.3d 689 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (summary judgment not substitute for trial on merits)
- Babin v. Winn Dixie La., Inc., 764 So.2d 37 (La.) (adverse party must produce evidence after mover points out lack of factual support)
- Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 144 So.3d 876 (La.) (definition of material fact and genuine issue)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La.) (courts may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment)
- Willis v. Medders, 775 So.2d 1049 (La.) (inferences construed for opposing party in summary judgment)
- LeBlanc v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation, 563 So.2d 312 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (prima facie case in slip-and-fall and burden shift to premises owner to show reasonable discovery/correction measures)
- Grinnell v. St. Francis Medical Center, Inc., 156 So.3d 117 (La. App.) (hospital liability under negligence standards for slip-and-fall)
- Toussaint v. Baton Rouge General Medical Center, 251 So.3d 1151 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (reasonableness of measures to eliminate fall risk is a fact issue)
- Jones v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 220 So.3d 915 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (summary judgment rarely appropriate for disputes about reasonableness of conduct)
- Hoffman v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Servs. Dist. No. 2, 87 So.3d 370 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (public-entity notice statute not applicable to private hospital)