History
  • No items yet
midpage
196 So. 3d 71
La. Ct. App.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Eva Temple (81) tripped and fractured her wrist on a heavily cracked, uneven section of sidewalk crossing the driveway of Julie Morgan in Baton Rouge during a sunny afternoon walk in February 2011.
  • Photographs and a survey show multiple deep cracks and depressions with up to four inches of elevation change; the damaged condition predated Morgan’s 2005 purchase and existed for years without reported incidents.
  • Temple sued the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge alleging the sidewalk was unreasonably dangerous and that the City negligently failed to maintain or inspect it and had notice of the defect.
  • The City/Parish moved for summary judgment, arguing the defect was open and obvious, the City lacked duty to repair (policy places responsibility on homeowners), and it had no actual or constructive notice.
  • The trial court granted summary judgment for the City/Parish; the court of appeal affirmed, finding the defect was open and obvious and thus not an unreasonable risk of harm, making further duty/notice inquiries unnecessary.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Was the sidewalk defect an unreasonable risk of harm (open & obvious)? Temple argued she did not see the hazard and was unfamiliar with that stretch of sidewalk; therefore a factual dispute exists. City argued the cracks/depressions were plainly visible on a straight, unobstructed, sunny day and thus open and obvious to anyone. Court: Defect was open and obvious to all under the circumstances; not an unreasonable risk.
Did the City have constructive or actual notice of the defect? Temple argued City failed to establish inspection/repair policies and had constructive notice via neighborhood repairs and long-standing condition. City argued no complaints or reports prior to accident, and policy places repair responsibility on homeowner. Court: Declined to decide because open-and-obvious ruling dispositive.
Did the City owe a duty to perform periodic inspections/repair sidewalks? Temple claimed City failed to establish a system of inspections and thresholds to compel repairs. City relied on ordinance and policy assigning repair responsibility to homeowners; only repairs damage caused by City workers. Court: Declined to rule on duty issue because defect not unreasonably dangerous.
Was summary judgment appropriate given disputed factual issues/credibility? Temple contended credibility issues and factual disputes precluded summary judgment. City maintained the evidence left no genuine issue of material fact about obviousness and visibility. Court: Summary judgment appropriate; factual record showed no material dispute on obviousness.

Key Cases Cited

  • Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 85 So.3d 593 (La. 2012) (elements for public-entity liability for sidewalk defects)
  • Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings, 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (risk-utility test and discussion of factual nature of unreasonable-risk determination)
  • Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, LLC, 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (summary judgment appropriate where condition is open and obvious)
  • Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (open-and-obvious standard requires hazard be apparent to everyone who may encounter it)
  • Allen v. Lockwood, 156 So.3d 650 (La. 2015) (clarifies Broussard does not preclude summary judgment on obvious hazards)
  • Dickson v. City of Shreveport, 104 So.3d 9 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2012) (cracked sidewalk held open and obvious; summary judgment affirmed)
  • Williams v. Leonard Chabert Medical Center, 744 So.2d 206 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1999) (pedestrians must assume some responsibility for routine irregularities; open-and-obvious principle)
  • Boyle v. Bd. of Supervisors, La. State Univ., 685 So.2d 1080 (La. 1997) (public entities not liable for every sidewalk irregularity)
  • Ludlow v. Crescent City Connection Marine Division, 184 So.3d 21 (La. 2015) (danger posed by a concrete barrier was obvious and summary judgment appropriate)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Temple v. Morgan
Court Name: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Date Published: Jun 3, 2016
Citations: 196 So. 3d 71; 2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 1159; 2016 La. App. LEXIS 1121; 2016 WL 3126117; No. 2015 CA 1159
Docket Number: No. 2015 CA 1159
Court Abbreviation: La. Ct. App.
Log In
    Temple v. Morgan, 196 So. 3d 71