Tsegaye v. City of New Orleans
183 So. 3d 705
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- On April 15, 2011 a streetlight pole owned by the City of New Orleans fell and injured taxi driver Baraki Tsegaye; he sued the City, Royal Engineers & Consultants, L.L.C. (Royal Engineers), All Star Electric, and Utility Construction Services.
- Royal Engineers had a contract to manage/inspect the City’s streetlight system (GIS tracking, weekly night patrols, annual daytime surveys, and work-order generation) but was not contracted to perform physical repairs.
- Royal Engineers moved for summary judgment arguing Tsegaye could not prove it knew or should have known of any defect (an element of liability under La. C.C. arts. 2317/2317.1).
- The trial court granted Royal Engineers’ motion but the judgment lacked decretal language naming the losing party and expressly dismissing the suit with prejudice.
- The appellant obtained a trial-court “certification” of finality; the Fourth Circuit sua sponte questioned appellate jurisdiction for lack of decretal language, dismissed the appeal, converted it to a supervisory-writ application, and reviewed the merits de novo.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Royal Engineers and amended the judgment to add decretal language dismissing Tsegaye’s suit against Royal Engineers with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction / final judgment form | Certification of finality under La. C.C.P. art. 1915 is sufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction | Judgment lacked decretal language naming the losing party and relief, so appeal was not properly invoked | Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; converted to supervisory writ; court supplied decretal language and reviewed merits |
| Motion for summary judgment under arts. 2317/2317.1 (constructive knowledge) | Tsegaye argued facts permit inference Royal Engineers had constructive notice (contractual inspection obligations, nearby pole collapse, expert opinion of internal corrosion) | Royal Engineers showed no notice, no records of complaints/work orders for that pole, and that it did not have exclusive custody or perform repairs | No genuine issue of material fact as to notice; summary judgment properly granted because plaintiff presented no evidence of timing/duration of defect or that inspections were missed |
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur | Tsegaye urged res ipsa to infer Royal Engineers’ negligence from the pole collapse | Royal Engineers argued no exclusive control and other plausible causes exist | Res ipsa not appropriate: plaintiff offered speculation about cause and no evidence Royal Engineers had exclusive control |
| Spoliation / adverse inference for removal of pole | Tsegaye sought punitive damages and adverse inference because pole/base were removed before suit | Royal Engineers (and record) showed pole was removed before Royal Engineers was served; no duty to preserve arose prior to service | Spoliation claim dismissed: no preservation duty attached to Royal Engineers before service, so no adverse inference allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mid City Holdings, L.L.C. v. Board of Supervisors of La. State Univ. and Agric. & Mech. Coll., 151 So.3d 908 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2014) (judgment must contain decretal language to be final and appealable)
- Whitney Nat. Bank v. Rockwell, 661 So.2d 1325 (La. 1995) (factors supporting discretionary supervisory review when reversal will terminate litigation)
- Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355 (La. 1992) (res ipsa loquitur standards and cautious application)
- Rapalo-Alfaro v. Lee, 173 So.3d 1174 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2015) (appellate de novo standard for summary judgment review)
- Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1998) (spoliation: duty to preserve arises when party has notice that evidence is relevant)