Freeman v. W. Carroll Parish Police Jury

349 So.3d 637

Lachelle FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.WEST CARROLL PARISH POLICE JURY, Defendant-Appellee

No. 54,750-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered September 21, 2022

ANTHONY J. BRUSCATO, Monroe, Counsel for Appellant

GOLD, WEEMS, BRUSER, SUES & RUNDELL, By: Steven M. Oxenhandler, Michael John O'Shee, Alexandria, Martha Rundell Crenshaw, Counsel for Appellee

Before STONE, COX, and THOMPSON, JJ.

COX, J.

This civil suit arises from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of West Carroll, Louisiana. Plaintiff, Lachelle Freeman ("Freeman"), appeals a judgment granting a motion for summary judgment by Defendant, West Carroll Parish Police Jury (the "Police Jury"), dismissing Freeman's claims with prejudice. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's decision.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 26, 2019, Freeman filed a petition for damages against the Police Jury. Freeman alleged that on August 14, 2019, she went to the West Carroll Parish Courthouse in Oak Grove, Louisiana, to retrieve documents from the district attorney's office located on the second floor of the building. Freeman provided that after she left the office with her paperwork, she proceeded to exit the building; however, as she made her way toward the exit, Freeman claimed that she did not see or realize that there were steps ahead of her and subsequently fell down the interior steps, injuring her right shoulder. Freeman later acknowledged in her affidavit that leading up to and at the time of the incident, she was looking down at her paperwork as she walked. Freeman stated in her deposition that although she was reviewing her paperwork, she was also able to "look [sic] at the floor using [her] peripheral vision."

Freeman claimed that because "the color of the steps [was] close to the same ... color of the rest of the floor and the walls, so the steps kind of blend into the floor," she thought she was walking on a flat surface. She alleged that:

[I]f there had been anything conspicuous on the floor to catch my eye, I would have seen it[.] But there was nothing conspicuous to catch my eye and tell me that there were steps or anything to watch out for. There was no warning cone and no railing. If there had been a warning cone or a railing sticking up, I would have seen this with my peripheral vision and known I needed to watch out for something ahead of me. If the edges of the stairs had been marked with contrasting nonskid material or just painted a contrasting color that made them stand out from the rest of the floor. I would have seen the contrasting color and known to look to see what the color represented, and I would have seen the stairs.

In response to Freeman's petition, the Police Jury generally denied all allegations of liability for any and all damages related to Freeman's injuries. In addition to numerous affirmative defenses, the Police Jury asserted that Freeman could not show that the stairs created an unreasonable risk of harm or that the Police Jury had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged condition of the stairs and ramp. Notably, the Police jury further asserted that Freeman's damages occurred solely through her own negligence, fault, and inattentiveness, as she admitted to being distracted while walking toward the stairs and ramp. In addressing Freeman's assertion that the absence of a handrail between the stairs and ramp created a hazardous condition that contributed to her injury, the Police Jury averred that Freeman would have fallen regardless of the design of the ramp or the handrail because she was distracted while walking.

Following discovery, in which video surveillance and photographs of the accident were produced, Freeman filed a motion for partial summary judgment on February 9, 2021. Freeman acknowledged that although she was distracted at the time of the accident, the Police Jury, which maintained custody over the condition of the stairs and ramp, was partially liable for her damages. In relying on the expert opinion of Foy Gadberry ("Gadberry"), a licensed civil engineer, who examined the surveillance video of the incident, Freeman asserted that the dual stair/ramp walkway was not constructed in accordance with the applicable building code provisions because no handrail was installed to separate the stairs from the ramp. Freeman asserted that the absence of a handrail, in addition to other characteristics of the dual stair/ramp walkway, created a hazardous condition that contributed to her injury, for which the Police Jury is liable.

The Police Jury opposed Freeman's motion for partial summary judgment, and filed its own motion for summary judgment, arguing that Freeman could not establish the essential elements of her claim. The Police Jury reiterated that Freeman's damages were caused solely by her own inattentiveness, to which Freeman admitted and were captured on the surveillance video. It argued that even if the absence of the handrail created a hazardous condition, it was open and obvious primarily because Freeman previously used the steps, without incident, moments before she fell, and that Freeman could have walked down the steps without incident had she exercised due care. Moreover, the Police Jury argued that there was no evidence that it had any notice, either actual or constructive, that the dual stair/ramp walkway was hazardous which was supported by the absence of any record of a complaint or notice of a problem or potential problem regarding the dual stair/ramp walkway since either was installed.

In opposition, Freeman primarily reiterated her previous assertion that the Police Jury was partially responsible for her injuries. Freeman argued that even if her initial stumble was due entirely to her inattentiveness, her subsequent fall was due, in part, to the absence of an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") mandated handrail.¹ Freeman contended that if the handrail had been present, or alternatively, a sign had been placed in the area drawing attention to the presence of the stairs, then she should have either been able to catch herself from falling or noticed the steps before she approached them. Freeman re-asserted that the Police Jury should be found partially liable for her injuries because the evidence supports the conclusion that her injury resulted from a "combination of her own negligence [and the] defendant's decision to construct a staircase/ramp that is not compliant with the Louisiana Building Code and which is otherwise unsafe."

Following arguments, the trial court signed a written judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of the Police Jury, dismissing Freeman's claims with prejudice. Freeman now appeals.

DISCUSSION

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact for all or part of the relief prayed for by a litigant. Samaha v. Rau , 07-1726 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So. 2d 880. Appellate courts review motions for summary judgment de novo , using the same criteria that govern the district court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate, i.e. , whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. ; Peironnet v. Matador Res. Co. , 12-2292 (La. 6/28/13), 144 So. 3d 791 ; Harris v. City of Shreveport , 53,101 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/22/20), 295 So. 3d 978 ; Bess v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc. , 54,111 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/17/21), 331 So. 3d 490.

La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1) addresses the burden of proof for summary judgment as follows:

The burden of proof rests with the mover. Nevertheless, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover's burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense. The burden is on the adverse party to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3). A fact is material if it potentially ensures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant's ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute.

A genuine issue of material fact is one as to which reasonable persons could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, there is no need for trial on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate. Harris , supra ; Maggio v. Parker , 17-1112 (La. 6/27/18), 250 So. 3d 874. In determining whether an issue is genuine, a court should not consider the merits, make credibility determinations, evaluate testimony, or weigh evidence. Harris , supra ; Chanler v. Jamestown Ins. Co. , 51,320 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/17/17), 223 So. 3d 614, writ denied , 17-01251 (La. 10/27/17), 228 So. 3d 1230.

La. C.C. art. 2317 provides that "[w]e are responsible, not only for the damage occasioned by our own act, but for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom we are answerable, or of the things which we have in our custody." Further, La. C.C. art. 2317.1 provides that:

The owner or custodian of a thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its ruin, vice, or defect, only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the ruin, vice, or defect which caused the damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care.

To recover for damages caused by a defective thing, a plaintiff must prove that the...