251 So. 3d 675
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Oct. 8, 2013, a Coca‑Cola merchandiser (Burden) left two cases of Monster Energy drinks on the floor of a Winn‑Dixie beverage aisle while restocking; they remained unattended ~30 minutes.
- Plaintiff Woods, with her left arm in a sling after recent rotator‑cuff surgery, stepped backward while being assisted by another customer and tripped over the unattended cases, sustaining injuries requiring additional shoulder surgery and a three‑level cervical fusion.
- Woods sued Burden, Coca‑Cola (vicariously), and Winn‑Dixie (including under La. R.S. 9:2800.6), alleging negligence and unsafe premises; defendants denied fault.
- A jury found an unreasonable risk of harm existed, that the risk was foreseeable, and apportioned fault 50% to Winn‑Dixie and 50% to Burden/Coca‑Cola; Woods was found not at fault.
- The jury awarded total damages of $877,102 (including $620,000 in general damages); the trial court entered judgment and defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were jury instructions inadequate for "open and obvious" conditions? | Trial court correctly instructed using the Broussard risk‑utility factors (including obviousness) and adopted a compromise charge proposed by parties. | Trial court failed to separately and prominently instruct that open and obvious conditions negate a duty; requested specific language was omitted. | No reversible error; instructions fairly stated law and included obviousness as part of risk‑utility test; no de novo review warranted. |
| Should comparative fault have been allocated to Woods? | Woods argued she acted reasonably; expert testimony supported that her conduct was ordinary and that defendants created the hazard. | Defendants argued Woods failed to exercise reasonable care given recent surgery and stepping backward into a visible hazard; sought substantial or total fault allocation to Woods. | Jury's allocation (Woods 0%) was not manifestly erroneous; factfinder reasonably credited expert and store policy evidence. |
| Are the general damages excessive? | Woods emphasized significant surgeries, complications, permanent pain, lifestyle effects and medical testimony supporting lasting impairment. | Defendants contended injuries/limitations were limited and surgeries were successful, so $620,000 was abusively high. | Award affirmed: appellate court found no clear abuse of discretion given testimony and prognosis. |
| Did the risk‑utility (Broussard) framework control outcome? | Woods relied on risk‑utility factors to show condition was unreasonably dangerous despite possible obviousness. | Defendants argued obviousness should be outcome‑determinative; less emphasis on full risk‑utility balancing. | Court applied Broussard balancing (utility, likelihood/magnitude including obviousness, cost to prevent, plaintiff activity) and found instructions and verdict consistent with that framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Broussard v. State, through Office of State Bldgs., Div. of Admin., 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (risk‑utility test for unreasonable risk of harm; includes obviousness as factor)
- Bufkin v. Felipe's La., L.L.C., 171 So.3d 851 (La. 2014) (defendant generally has no duty to protect against open and obvious conditions)
- Oregan v. Cashio, 220 So.3d 845 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2017) (standards for jury instructions and adequacy review)
- Thibodeaux v. Donnell, 219 So.3d 274 (La. 2017) (appellate review standard for general damages and abuse of discretion)
- Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La. 1993) (framework for appellate review of damage awards)