Tyler Renwick v. P N K Lake Charles, L.L.C.
901 F.3d 605
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Renwick, an employee of subcontractor PB Technologies, fell from a defective ladder while accessing vents on the roof of the L’Auberge hotel, owned/operated by PNK Lake Charles LLC (PNK), sustaining serious injuries.
- The hotel sits adjacent to a floating casino; PNK instructed contractors during a 2007 walkthrough to access the hotel roof from the casino roof by using ladders spanning a 2–3 foot gap.
- PB objected and proposed a safer platform; PNK rejected the proposal for budget reasons and, until after the accident, did not disclose a safer interior access route.
- Disputed facts: who owned, placed, and secured the fiberglass extension ladders (PNK or PB), and whether PB routinely found the ladders already set up and tied off on the casino roof.
- Procedural posture: district court granted summary judgment for PNK on negligence (premises-owner liability) and defective-thing (La. Civ. Code arts. 2315/2317.1) theories; Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding genuine factual disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Renwick) | Defendant's Argument (PNK) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PNK exercised "operational control" over PB such that owner liability applies | PNK directed the specific point and method of access (casino roof + ladders), rejected PB’s safer platform, controlled site access, and may have provided the ladders | PNK made only non-binding recommendations, did not supervise day-to-day work, and choice of ladders was within PB’s scope | Reversed: genuine fact issue exists on operational control; must go to jury |
| Whether PNK expressly or impliedly authorized an unsafe practice | PNK directed ladder access, concealed an interior route, and may have placed/secured ladders, thereby authorizing unsafe ingress/egress | PNK denies authorizing unsafe practice and disputes ownership/placement of ladders | Reversed: factual dispute exists whether PNK authorized the unsafe practice |
| Whether PNK is liable as owner/custodian of a defective thing under La. Civ. Code art. 2317.1 (unreasonable risk) | Ladder was defective (no stabilizing feet); PNK had custody/benefit and may have maintained ladders on-site, raising an unreasonable-risk question under risk–utility balancing | PNK emphasized Renwick’s failure to inspect the ladder and PB/OSHA training to show no unreasonable risk as a matter of law | Reversed: summary judgment improper because unreasonable-risk is fact-intensive and plaintiff’s knowledge is not dispositive; jury question remains |
| Whether Renwick’s conduct was an intervening/superseding cause absolving PNK | Renwick’s use was foreseeable given PNK’s control of access and ladder availability | PNK argues Renwick’s (and PB’s) negligence superseded any owner fault | Not decided on appeal; factual dispute about foreseeability prevents resolution as matter of law; remand for jury consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d 754 (5th Cir.) (summary judgment standard and view of evidence for non-movant)
- Andersen v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment/genuine issue standard)
- Fruge ex rel. Fruge v. Parker Drilling Co., 337 F.3d 558 (5th Cir.) (operational control requires direct supervision of operative details)
- LeJeune v. Shell Oil Co., 950 F.2d 267 (5th Cir.) (distinguishing general supervision from operational control)
- Davis v. Dynamic Offshore Res., LLC, 865 F.3d 235 (5th Cir.) (premises-owner exceptions: operational control and authorization of unsafe practice)
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La.) (risk–utility framework; plaintiff’s actual knowledge not dispositive for unreasonable-risk analysis)