165 So. 3d 98
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Shineda Taylor sued Airline Skate Center and its operator after she fell and broke her ankle while wearing rented skates on May 8, 2010.
- Taylor testified she switched from size 8 to size 7 skates, walked about 30 minutes in the kiddie/carpeted area, and fell when the front wheels of her left skate "locked up."
- Taylor did not report the incident to rink employees, did not complete an accident report, and did not preserve the skates for inspection.
- Airline submitted an affidavit from its long‑time manager describing routine inspections, maintenance, and a repair log for skates; no employee had notice of any problem with Taylor’s skates.
- Taylor admitted she had no evidence to show the skates were defective, that Airline failed to inspect or repair them, or that Airline knew or should have known of any defect.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Airline; Taylor appealed arguing the court improperly made credibility determinations and that material factual disputes remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether material fact exists that skates were defective causing the fall | Taylor: the front wheel "locked up" and skates looked old/dirty, supporting defect/negligence | Airline: Taylor has no evidence of defect, notice, or failure to maintain; manager affidavit shows routine inspections/repairs | Court: No genuine issue — Taylor offered only conclusory testimony and admitted she has no evidence; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether owner had actual/constructive notice of skate defect (art. 2317.1 / premises liability) | Taylor: defect was foreseeable from condition/appearance of skates | Airline: no notice shown; regular maintenance and no reports in log | Court: Plaintiff failed to produce evidence of actual or constructive notice; burden not met |
| Whether credibility determinations barred on summary judgment | Taylor: trial court made impermissible credibility calls on her testimony | Airline: summary judgment proper because plaintiff’s uncorroborated testimony is insufficient | Court: No error — credibility not required where plaintiff admits lack of evidence and reasonable minds must conclude for mover |
| Whether an accident alone can establish defect/strict liability | Taylor: accident and appearance of skates infer defect | Airline: accident itself insufficient; must prove defect and notice | Court: Accident alone insufficient; plaintiff must present proof of defect/notice and failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Succession of Holbrook, 144 So.3d 845 (La. 2014) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo using same criteria as trial court)
- Muller v. Carrier Corp., 984 So.2d 883 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (substantive law governs propriety of summary judgment)
- Smith v. Casino New Orleans Casino, 101 So.3d 507 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (negligence/fault can be resolved on summary judgment when no genuine fact issue remains)
- Richard v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 123 So.3d 345 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2013) (conclusory allegations and speculation cannot create genuine issues of material fact)
- Sears v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 943 So.2d 1219 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (unsupported deposition testimony insufficient to meet opponent’s summary judgment burden)
- Thompson v. BGK Equities, Inc., 927 So.2d 351 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2005) (existence of a defect cannot be inferred merely from occurrence of accident)