Warren v. Kenny
64 So. 3d 841
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ms. Warren, a medical assistant tenant, lived in a D. Kenny building without a lease and was allowed to use the laundry facility.
- The laundry facility was on the open balcony of a neighboring tenant; access was via a ladder attached to the building, installed by Kenny’s staff.
- Ms. Warren descended a ladder to access the laundry; the railing allegedly failed, causing her fall and a broken femur.
- Kenny moved the laundry setup and ordered/was aware tenants would use the ladder to reach the laundry facility.
- Kenny moved to dismiss following a motion for summary judgment, arguing the danger was open and obvious and no duty to warn.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in Kenny’s favor; Warren appealed, asserting genuine issues of material fact remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty despite open and obvious danger | Warren contends open and obvious defense does not negate a duty to warn. | Kenny argues no duty exists because the danger was open and obvious. | Open and obvious does not automatically bar duty; genuine issues remain. |
| Disputed purpose and placement of ladder create factual questions | Dispute over why the ladder was placed and its intended use creates material facts for duty. | Placement served workers or access to laundry; no duty to Warren established. | Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding ladder purpose and duty. |
| Rail railing as a separate dangerous condition | Rail securing method (screen-door hooks) could be unreasonably dangerous and not obvious. | Rails were not inherently dangerous and Warren assumed risk by using the ladder. | Rail condition presents a potential duty issue; not conclusively open and obvious. |
| Summary judgment premature given ongoing discovery and expert needs | Discovery and expert inspection were ongoing; summary judgment premature. | The record showed an open and obvious risk and no duty warranted. | Judgment premature; issues require trial for fact-finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eisenhardt v. Snook, 8 So.3d 541 (La. 2009) (landowner owes duty to discover and warn of unreasonably dangerous conditions)
- Socorro v. City of New Orleans, 579 So.2d 931 (La. 1991) (open and obvious hazards may preclude liability)
- Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 334 So.2d 406 (La. 1976) (duty linked to reasonable care of dangerous conditions)
- Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 995 So.2d 1184 (La. 2008) (extremely obvious danger may absolve duty to warn or remedy)
- Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 866 So.2d 228 (La. 2004) (factors in determining unreasonably dangerous condition, including obviousness)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (obviousness informs comparative fault analysis)
- DeStevens v. Harsco Corp., 652 So.2d 1054 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995) (material issue as to how obvious danger was; open question for jury)
- Burns v. CLK Investments V, L.L.C., 45 So.3d 1152 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (open and obvious danger may not preclude all liability, depending on facts)