208 So. 3d 1053
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Slip-and-fall on exterior stairway at Lakes of Chateau South during ongoing snow/ice/sleet storm on Jan. 14, 2014; plaintiff Gail Stone injured her shoulder.
- Complex has 248 units; plaintiff left work late evening, saw parking-lot ice and a posted warning sign at the stairwell entrance, and ascended slowly but did not use the handrail before slipping on a clear patch of ice.
- Defendant landlord/insurer posted warning signs and spread sand after maintenance observed ice earlier in the day; maintenance did not scrape ice and staff left when office closed due to weather.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence (failure to inspect/warn/clear/adequately light) and later urged strict-liability under La. C.C. Arts. 2696–2697; defendant moved for summary judgment arguing open-and-obvious condition and no further duty after warnings.
- Trial court denied summary judgment as to whether the condition was open and obvious; the Fifth Circuit granted supervisory review, reversed, and rendered summary judgment for defendants, dismissing all claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn/guard during ongoing storm | Lakes should have continued to warn/clear and kept employees on site | Posted signs and sand were sufficient; no duty to continuously clear during storm | No further duty after posting warnings given rare, ongoing storm conditions; summary judgment for defendants |
| Open-and-obvious condition (negligence) | Ice was clear and stairwell dimly lit; factual dispute precludes summary judgment | Plaintiff knew of icy conditions, saw parking-lot ice and warning sign; condition was open and obvious | Court found no genuine issue: plaintiff aware of hazard and warned; summary judgment appropriate |
| Existence of a defect under Arts. 2696–2697 (strict liability) | Ice on stairway is a defect warranting strict liability | Ice during an ice storm is not a defect the lessor warranted against | Ice during an ongoing storm not a defect reasonably expected to injure a prudent person using ordinary care; strict-liability claim dismissed |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on these issues | Questions of fact should go to jury | Undisputed facts negate essential elements; movant entitled to judgment as matter of law | De novo review: undisputed facts support granting summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Schroeder v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 591 So.2d 342 (La. 1991) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (owner/custodian duty to discover and correct or warn of unreasonably dangerous conditions)
- Cennett v. Arceneaux, 119 So.3d 670 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (elements of landlord strict liability under Art. 2696)
- King v. Allen Court Apts. II, 185 So.3d 835 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2015) (existence of defect may not be inferred solely from occurrence of an accident)