298 So.3d 191
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- On June 7, 2016, Tina Collins slipped and fell at St. Elizabeth Hospital's second-floor hallway after walking into a three-foot-tall yellow "wet floor" warning cone placed by a housekeeper who was mopping one side of the hall.
- Housekeeper Kari Nemmo testified she placed a cone at the hallway entrance, rolled additional cones down the hall, and mopped the left side of the hallway per training; video shows she left the area and continued mopping elsewhere before the fall.
- Video footage and Collins's deposition show the cone was present and that Collins admitted she did not see it though she had an unobstructed view for several seconds prior to falling.
- Collins sued the hospital for negligence (failure to discover/correct and failure to warn); the hospital moved for summary judgment arguing it acted reasonably by placing warning cones.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the hospital, concluding the single conspicuous cone provided adequate warning and Collins’s failure to see it did not create a material factual dispute.
- On appeal Collins argued the hospital acted unreasonably and genuine issues of material fact exist; the hospital cross-asked for frivolous-appeal damages and challenged the trial court’s cost allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hospital acted unreasonably in warning of a wet floor | Collins: one cone was insufficient given approach from a side hallway; more cones needed, so a jury could find unreasonableness | St. Elizabeth: placed a large, conspicuous cone at the hall entrance per training; video and testimony show adequate warning | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for hospital; one cone was adequate and Collins had time to see it, so no genuine material fact |
| Whether Collins’s failure to see the cone defeats summary judgment | Collins: she did not see the cone and was looking for a nurse | St. Elizabeth: Collins had unobstructed view for seconds and cannot rely on failing to see what a reasonable person should see | Court: A pedestrian must observe visible hazards; Collins’s admitted unobstructed view forecloses her claim |
| Whether the appeal was frivolous and frivolous-appeal damages should be awarded | N/A (Collins appealed) | St. Elizabeth: appeal lacked merit; request for damages and fees under art. 2164 | Court: Appeal lacked merit but Collins had a reasonable belief in her position; declined to award frivolous-appeal damages |
| Trial court cost allocation | Collins sought each party bear own costs | St. Elizabeth: argued error in cost allocation against it | Court: Trial court discretion permits equitable allocation; no abuse of discretion in ordering each party to bear own costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Northshore Regional Medical Center, 170 So. 3d 173 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2015) (summary-judgment review de novo and mover's burden explained)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So. 2d 764 (La. 2004) (summary judgment: court must not weigh evidence or assess credibility; genuine issue defined)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, 639 So. 2d 730 (La. 1994) (defines material fact in negligence context)
- Toussaint v. Baton Rouge General Medical Center, 251 So. 3d 1151 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2018) (hospital owes visitors reasonable care under circumstances; reasonableness is a factual question)
- Lee v. Ryan's Family Steak House Inc., 960 So. 2d 1042 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (holding a single prominent cone can be adequate warning and mere addition of cones would not have prevented fall)
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 866 So. 2d 228 (La. 2004) (pedestrian duty to observe obvious obstructions; cannot rely on failure to see what should have been seen)