gets.primecure.net

Tag: Premises Liability

  • Stairway to Dismissal: Missed Deadline Leads to Summary Judgment in Injury Case

    This case focuses on the procedural aspects of a personal injury lawsuit, highlighting the importance of deadlines and the consequences of missing them.

    Case Background

    Charles and Jeri Kouba sued the City of Natchitoches after Mr. Kouba fell on a staircase owned by the city. They alleged a defect in the staircase caused his injuries. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Koubas opposed. However, they missed the deadline to file their opposition and requested a continuance (postponement) of the hearing. The trial court denied their request and granted summary judgment in favor of the City.

    Motion to Continue

    The Koubas argued that they needed more time to gather evidence and expert opinions to oppose the summary judgment motion. However, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of their continuance request. Here’s why:

    • Missed Deadline: The Koubas missed the statutory deadline to file their opposition to the summary judgment motion.
    • Purpose of Continuance: The court explained that the purpose of allowing continuances in summary judgment proceedings is to give parties time to comply with deadlines, not to excuse missed deadlines.
    • Lack of Good Cause: The Koubas’ reason for missing the deadline was their attorney’s calendaring error, which the court did not consider a sufficient “good cause” for a continuance.

    Summary Judgment

    The court then reviewed the summary judgment ruling itself, applying the same standards as the trial court:

    • Burden of Proof: The City, as the moving party, had the burden to show that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
    • Premises Liability: In Louisiana, to hold a public entity liable for an injury on its property, a plaintiff must prove several elements, including that the property was defective, the defect posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and the entity had notice of the defect.
    • Lack of Evidence: The court found that the Koubas failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the City’s knowledge of any defect in the staircase.

    Exclusion of Evidence

    The Koubas also argued that the trial court erred in excluding photographs they attempted to introduce. However, the court found no error because the Koubas had missed the deadline to file these photographs with their opposition to the summary judgment.

    Key Takeaways

    • Deadlines Matter: Meeting procedural deadlines is crucial in legal proceedings. Failure to do so can have serious consequences.
    • Summary Judgment Standards: Summary judgment can be a powerful tool to resolve cases efficiently when there are no genuine factual disputes.
    • Premises Liability: Proving a premises liability claim against a public entity requires evidence of a defect, an unreasonable risk of harm, and the entity’s knowledge of the defect.

    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the denial of the continuance and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. This case underscores the importance of diligence in meeting procedural deadlines and the necessity of presenting sufficient evidence to survive a summary judgment motion.

  • Who’s Responsible When a Step Collapses?

    The following case deals with a common scenario: a guest gets injured at a business and sues, alleging negligence. But the legal outcome hinges on a crucial factor – whether the business owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition that caused the injury.

    Case Summary

    Melanie Mark was injured when a wooden step on a cabin staircase collapsed at a KOA campground in Lafayette, Louisiana. She sued KOA, claiming they were negligent in maintaining the property. However, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of KOA, finding that Ms. Mark failed to prove KOA had any knowledge of the defect in the stairs. Ms. Mark appealed this decision.

    Legal Principles

    The court’s decision revolved around Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317.1, which deals with premises liability. Here’s the key takeaway:

    Knowledge is Key: Property owners are only liable for injuries caused by defects if they knew, or should have known, about the defect and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the damage.
    The court also considered the duty of care owed by innkeepers to their guests:

    Innkeeper’s Duty: Innkeepers have a heightened duty to ensure their premises are safe and to warn guests of any hidden dangers. This includes conducting reasonable inspections.
    The Court’s Analysis

    The appeals court reviewed the evidence and found no indication that KOA knew or should have known about the rotten step. Here’s why:

    No Prior Complaints: KOA had no record of any prior complaints or issues with the stairs.
    Regular Maintenance and Inspections: KOA conducted regular maintenance and yearly inspections, and no defects were found.
    Hidden Defect: The rot was hidden on the underside of the step, making it difficult to detect even with a reasonable inspection.
    Plaintiff’s Own Testimony: Ms. Mark herself testified that the stairs appeared fine and safe when she used them before the accident.
    Based on this, the court concluded that KOA did not breach its duty of care and was not liable for Ms. Mark’s injuries.

    Important Considerations

    This case highlights some important aspects of premises liability law:

    Burden of Proof: The injured party bears the burden of proving the property owner’s knowledge of the defect.
    Constructive Knowledge: Even if the owner didn’t have actual knowledge, they can still be liable if they should have known about the defect through reasonable care.
    Hidden Defects: Liability is less likely when the defect is hidden and not readily discoverable.
    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, granting summary judgment in favor of KOA. This means Ms. Mark’s case was dismissed, and she was responsible for the costs of the appeal.

    This case serves as a reminder that proving negligence in premises liability cases requires demonstrating the property owner’s knowledge of the dangerous condition. When a defect is hidden and there’s no evidence the owner knew or should have known about it, it’s difficult to establish liability.

  • When Accidents Happen: The Limits of a Homeowner’s Liability for a Child’s Injury

    A tragic accident involving a young boy with autism has raised questions about the legal responsibility of homeowners when someone is injured on their property. The case of Justin Stollenwerck v. Robert Schweggman, Jr., et al. explores the boundaries of a homeowner’s duty of care, especially when the injured party is the guest of a tenant. This blog post examines the case details and the court’s ruling, shedding light on the complexities of premises liability law.

    The Accident:

    Ryse Stollenwerck, a five-year-old boy with autism, was severely injured while playing at his mother’s boyfriend’s house. The boyfriend, Robert Schweggman Jr., was spinning another child around when they accidentally struck Ryse, causing serious injuries that left him wheelchair-bound and unable to speak.

    Ryse’s father sued Schweggman and the homeowner, John Ehret, claiming negligence. They argued that Ehret, who lived in Texas and rarely visited the Louisiana property, was negligent in allowing Schweggman and his son to play unsupervised, leading to Ryse’s injuries. They also suggested that Ehret, knowing Schweggman’s employment history, should have been aware that he was not equipped to care for a young autistic child.

    Ehret moved for summary judgment, arguing that he owed no duty to Ryse and had no obligation to supervise Schweggman or the children.

    The trial court granted Ehret’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. The court emphasized that homeowners generally have no duty to protect others from the actions of third parties unless a “special relationship” exists, such as parent-child or employer-employee. In this case, no such relationship existed between Ehret and Schweggman. The court also noted that Ehret was unaware that Ryse and his mother were living in the house and had no knowledge of Schweggman’s activities with the children.

    Key Takeaways:

    This case highlights several important legal principles:

    • Limited Duty of Care for Homeowners: Homeowners are not automatically responsible for injuries that occur on their property, especially when caused by the actions of third parties.
    • Special Relationships and Duty to Protect: A duty to protect others from harm arises only in specific relationships, such as parent-child or employer-employee.
    • Foreseeability and Negligence: A homeowner can be held liable for negligence if the injury was foreseeable and they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. However, in this case, the court found that Ehret had no reason to foresee the accident.

    Conclusion:

    The Stollenwerck case serves as a reminder of the limitations of a homeowner’s liability for injuries occurring on their property. While the outcome is undoubtedly heartbreaking for the Stollenwerck family, it reinforces the legal principle that homeowners are not automatically responsible for the actions of others on their premises.

    Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Homeowner’s Liability: Homeowner Liability Insurance Coverage Upheld for Harmful Accident and What happens if a roofer is injured while putting a new roof on your house?

  • Slipping in Stores: When Does the Store’s Responsibility Kick In?

    We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case of Barton v. Walmart highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.

    In 2016, Douglas Barton was shopping at a Walmart store in Alexandria, Louisiana, during a rainy day. As he entered the store, he slipped on a wet spot on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. He sued Walmart, claiming they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment for their customers.

    Walmart denied liability, arguing that they had no knowledge of the wet spot and that it likely occurred moments before Barton entered the store due to the wind blowing rain inside. They presented evidence of an inspection conducted earlier that morning, which had not noted any hazards.

    Barton countered, arguing that the inspection was inadequate and that the wetness, which he believed to be condensation, had likely been there for a while. He pointed out that he had been in the area for some time and hadn’t seen anyone else slip or create the wet spot. He asserted that Walmart had “constructive notice” of the hazard—meaning they should have known about it.

    The trial court initially ruled in favor of Walmart, granting them summary judgment and dismissing Barton’s case. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision.

    The appeals court focused on the issue of “constructive notice,” a legal concept that holds a merchant liable if a hazard existed for a long enough time that they should have reasonably discovered and addressed it. The court found that Barton had presented enough evidence to raise a genuine question about how long the wet spot had been on the floor.

    The specific evidence the court pointed to was:

    • The moisture was present before Barton fell.
    • Barton was in the area for a while and didn’t see anyone else there.
    • The moisture wasn’t near any products that could have recently spilled.

    Because Barton presented this evidence, the appeals court decided a jury should determine whether Walmart had constructive notice of the hazard and was liable for Barton’s injuries.

    Things to Remember: 

    • In slip-and-fall cases, the injured party is required to prove the merchant was negligent. This usually means showing that the merchant created the hazard, knew about it, or should have known about it.
    • Even if a merchant didn’t directly create a hazard or know about it, they can still be liable if it existed for a long enough time that they should have discovered and addressed it.
    • The outcome of these cases often hinges on evidence about how long the hazard existed, any witnesses, and the store’s policies and procedures for inspections and maintenance.

    Slip and fall cases can be complex. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident, it’s essential to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney to understand your rights and options. They can help you gather evidence, build a strong case, and fight for the compensation you deserve.

    Remember, the law is on your side if you can prove the merchant’s negligence. Don’t let a slip-and-fall accident leave you with lasting physical and financial burdens.

    Additional Sources: DOUGLAS W. BARTON VERSUS WAL-MART STORES, INC. 

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Slip and Fall Lawsuits in Louisiana: When Are Stairs An Unreasonably Unsafe Condition? and When a Slip and Fall Isn’t Just an Accident: Understanding Merchant Liability

  • Hotel Not Liable for Pool Injury: Understanding Premises Liability and the “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Doctrine in Louisiana

    A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal ruling underscores the complexities of premises liability cases and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving negligence when accidents occur on someone else’s property. The case, Krueger v. La Quinta Inn & Suites, involved a guest who suffered a foot injury due to broken glass in the hotel pool. While the injury was unfortunate, the court ultimately sided with the hotel, highlighting the necessity of establishing the property owner’s knowledge of the hazard.

    Casey Krueger and his family were staying at a La Quinta Inn & Suites in Baton Rouge when he cut his foot on broken glass in the pool. Although the jury acknowledged there was a defect on the premises, they found the hotel not liable because they didn’t have actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.

    Krueger appealed, arguing that the hotel should have known about the broken glass and that the doctrine of “res ipsa loquitur” should apply, allowing negligence to be inferred from the circumstances of the injury.

    The Court of Appeal upheld the jury’s verdict, focusing on two key aspects:

    1. Constructive Knowledge: In premises liability cases, property owners are generally only liable for injuries caused by hazards they knew about or should have known about through reasonable care. The court found no evidence that the hotel had actual knowledge of the broken glass. It also determined that the hotel’s regular pool inspections and policies prohibiting glass containers were sufficient to demonstrate reasonable care.

    2. Res Ipsa Loquitur: This Latin phrase, meaning “the thing speaks for itself,” allows negligence to be inferred in certain situations where the injury wouldn’t have occurred without someone’s negligence. However, the court rejected its application in this case, stating that it was equally possible a third party, not the hotel, was responsible for the broken glass in the pool.

    The Krueger case offers several important lessons:

    • Burden of Proof in Premises Liability: It’s not enough to show that an injury occurred on someone’s property. The injured party must prove that the property owner knew or should have known about the hazard and failed to take reasonable steps to address it.
    • Constructive Knowledge: Property owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining their premises and discovering potential dangers. This includes regular inspections and taking prompt action to address any hazards.
    • Res Ipsa Loquitur is Limited: This doctrine is not a catch-all for proving negligence. It only applies in specific situations where the circumstances clearly point to the defendant’s negligence and other potential causes are unlikely.

    Practical Implications for Hotel Guests and Businesses

    • For Guests: If you’re injured at a hotel, promptly report the incident and seek medical attention. Document the scene, including any hazards that may have contributed to your injury. This evidence can be crucial in establishing the hotel’s liability.
    • For Hotels: Implement and maintain a robust safety and inspection program. Regularly inspect your premises, including pools and other common areas, for potential hazards. Address any issues promptly and thoroughly.

    If you’ve been injured due to a hazard on someone else’s property, consulting with an experienced personal injury attorney is critical. They can help you assess the strength of your case, gather evidence, and navigate the legal complexities of premises liability law.

    Additional Resources: CASEY KRUEGER VERSUS LA QUINTA INN & SUITES, BATON ROUGE, LQ MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. AND RONALD BYLAND

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Res Ipsa Loquitor: Injured Taxi Driver Fails to Recover in Claim Based on Res Ipsa Loquitor and What is Res Ipsa Loquitor?

  • When a Slip and Fall Isn’t Just an Accident: Understanding Merchant Liability

    We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent case of Foto v. Rouse’s Enterprises, LLC, highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.

    In 2013, Daisy Foto was shopping at a Rouse’s store in Louisiana. She slipped on a clear liquid on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. Foto sued Rouse’s, claiming they were responsible for her injuries because they either created the hazardous condition, knew about it, or should have known about it.

    Rouse’s argued they had no liability because Foto couldn’t prove they created the spill, knew about it beforehand, or that it had been there long enough for them to reasonably discover and clean it up. They presented evidence of a store inspection conducted earlier that morning, showing no hazards were noted.

    Foto countered, arguing that the inspection was inadequate and that the spill had likely been there for some time, given that she had been in the aisle for about ten minutes and didn’t see anyone else. She argued this was enough to establish that Rouse’s had “constructive notice” of the hazard—meaning they should have known about it.

    The trial court initially sided with Rouse’s, granting them summary judgment and dismissing Foto’s case. However, an appeals court reversed that decision. The appeals court determined that Foto had presented enough evidence to create a genuine question about how long the spill had been on the floor. The specific evidence the appeals court pointed to was the following;

    1. The liquid was present on Aisle 12 before Foto fell.
    2. Foto was on the aisle for about 10 minutes before falling, and no one else was there.
    3. The liquid wasn’t near similar products, suggesting it didn’t spill recently.

    Because Foto presented that evidence in her opposition to Rouses’ motion, the appeals court felt a jury should decide whether Rouse had constructive notice of the hazard and was liable for Foto’s injuries.

    In slip and fall cases, the burden is on the injured party to prove the merchant was negligent. This usually means showing the merchant created the hazard, knew about it, or should have known about it. Even if a merchant didn’t directly create a hazard or know about it, they can still be liable if it existed for a long enough time that they should have discovered and addressed it. The outcome of these cases often hinges on evidence about how long the hazard existed, any witnesses, and the store’s policies and procedures for inspections and maintenance.

    Slip and fall cases can be complex. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident, it’s essential to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney to understand your rights and options.

    Additional Sources: Foto v. Rouse’s Enterprises, LLC

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Injury Premise Liablity: Construction Worker’s Electrocuted Injury Leads to Dispute Among Defendants Over Liability

  • Injured Shreveport Worker’s Claim Saved from Dismissal on Summary Judgment in Case Involving an Allegedly Open and Obvious Hazard

    David Cox delivered four pallets of shirk-wrapped material for his employer, Southwestern Motor Transport, in June 2012. The delivery location was the Baker Distributing Company warehouse in Shreveport, Louisiana. Baker’s delivery dock did not have a dock plate. A dock plate is a metal bridge connecting a truck’s back to the loading dock. There is an empty space between the back of the truck and the loading dock without a dock plate. In addition, Cox found that the loading dock was cluttered with several objects. Due to this clutter, Cox could not use a forklift to unload the truck.

    Working alone, Cox managed to get two pallets off the truck with a pallet jack but then used a dolly for the last two pallets. While attempting to get the previous pallet off the truck, Cox’s foot became wedged between the dock and the truck, causing him to fall on his back. Cox filed a lawsuit as a result of being injured.

    In the lawsuit Cox alleged that this fall caused him to have permanent injuries that made him disabled. The injury resulted in Cox receiving worker’s compensation benefits. Cox filed a lawsuit against Baker, arguing that the lack of a working dock plate made the dock unreasonably dangerous, that the lack of a dock plate was not easily visible to parties making deliveries to the warehouse, and that Baker had a duty to provide a safe entrance for parties unloading at the dock.

    Baker filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Cox was aware of the lack of a dock plate; this made the hazard open and evident to Cox, thereby insulating Baker from liability for his injuries. The trial court, concluding that the lack of a dock plate was open and obvious to individuals using the loading dock, granted Baker’s motion. 

    A hazard is considered open and obvious when the danger is clear to all who may encounter the hazard. Generally, a defendant is not obligated to protect against an open and obvious risk. Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 866 So.2d 235 (La. 2004). On appeal by Cox, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal for Louisiana acknowledged that the lack of a dock plate was evident to anyone attempting to unload items on the warehouse dock. However, in its view, the overall condition of the dock should also have been assessed when the trial court considered Baker’s motion for summary judgment.

    The Court of Appeal specifically mentioned that other relevant factors — such as the gap between the truck and the dock, the cluttered loading dock area, the inability of a forklift to maneuver the area, and the lack of assistance available to Cox — could have influenced one’s perception of the hazard. Because the trial court did not consider these additional factors, the Court of Appeal held that the decision to grant Baker’s summary judgment motion was improper. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and remanded the case for reconsideration. 

    Louisiana law insulates premises owners from liability for injuries resulting from open and obvious hazards, showing that the owner of a building is not responsible for every misfortune that a visitor may encounter. Anyone who has suffered an injury on someone else’s property should seek an attorney experienced in premises liability to determine if the facts of the situation establish responsibility on the property owner’s part.

    Additional Sources:  COX v. BAKER DIST. CO., L.L.C.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm  

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Workers Compensation:  Is Your Employer Liable If You Fall In The Parking Lot?