Rhonda Lacour, Keisha Cangelosi And Timothy Autin v. Phillis M. Sino, State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Hoffer's Of Chalmette, Inc., Xyz Ins. Co., Aaron's Investments, Inc. D/b/a Aaron's Donuts, Def Ins. Co., Jws Amusements, L.L.C. And Ghi Ins.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 15, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
RHONDA LACOUR, KEISHA CANGELOSI
AND TIMOTHY AUTIN
VS.
PHILLIS M. SINO, STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., HOFFER'S OF
CHALMETTE,
INC., XYZ INS. CO., AARON'S
INVESTMENTS, INC. D/B/A AARON'S
DONUTS, DEF INS.
CO., JWS AMUSEMENTS,
L.L.C. AND GHI INS. CO.
No. 2021-CC-00953
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Aa
ron's Investments, Inc. d/b/a Aaron's Donuts - Applicant Defendant;
Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company - Applicant Defendant; Aaron Barker -
Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th
Judicial District Court Number(s) 18- 0396, Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,
Number(s) 2021-C-0300;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 15, 2022
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
Hughes, J., concurs in the result.
Griffin, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
JTG
SJC
WJC
JBM
03/15/2022 "See News Release 011 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2021-CC-00953
RH
ONDA LACOUR, KEISHA CANGELOSI AND TIMOTHY AUTIN
VS.
PHILLIS M. SINO, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.,
HOFFER'S OF CHALMETTE, INC., XYZ INS. CO., AARON'S
INVESTMENTS, INC. D/B/A AARON'S DONUTS, DEF INS. CO., JWS
AMUSEMENTS, L.L.C. AND GHI INS. CO.
O
n Supervisory Writ to the 34th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Bernard
P
ER CURIAM
In this case, we are presented with the issue of whether a lessee of a shop is
responsible for injuries to patrons in the shop caused by a vehicle crashing in to the
building from the parking lot. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the lessee is
entitled to summary judgment.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises from an accident which occurred at a Chalmette strip mall.
Phyllis Sino was attempting to park in front of the Aaron’s Donut s shop when she
mistakenly pressed the accelerator rather than the brake of her vehicle. As a result,
Ms. Sino’s vehicle accelerated over a parking stop, across the raised sidewalk, and
crashed through the exterior wall of the donut shop.
At the time of the accident, plaintiffs were playing video poker in a small
room inside of the donut shop. The force of the impact caused the video poker
machines to fall on plaintiffs, resulting in injury.
Plaintiffs later filed suit against several defendants, including Aaron’s
Investment’s, Inc. d/b/a Aaron’s Donuts and its insurer, Atlantic Casualty Insurance
Company (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Aaron’s”). Essentially, plaintiffs
03/15/2022

2

alleged defendants were negligent in failing to place a protective barrier in the
parking lot to prevent an accident of this nature and by allowing an accident hazard
situation in the parking lot.
Aaron’s moved for summary judgment. In support of its motion, Aaron’s
argued it was a lessee of the premises and had no custody or control over the
building’s exterior, sidewalk, or parking lot pursuant to its lease agreement with
Hoffer’s of Chalmette, Inc. (“Hoffer’s”), the owner of the strip mall. Alternatively,
Aaron’s asserted it was not liable because the accident was not reasonably
foreseeable.
After a hearing , the district court denied Aaron’s motion for summary
judgment. Aaron’s applied to the court of appeal, which denied supervisory relief.
Upon Aaron’s application to this court, we ordered written briefing pursuant
to the provisions of La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(H).1 Having received briefs from both
parties, we now review the motion for summary judgment on the merits.

DISCUSSION
A summary judgment is reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate court
using the sam e criteria that govern the district court’s determ ination 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. Guidry v.
Brookshire Grocery Co., 19-1999 (La. 2/26/20), 289 So.3d 1026, 1027; Murphy v.
Savannah, 18-0991 (La. 5/8/19), 282 So.3d 1034, 1038; Wright v. Louisiana Power
& Light, 06-1181 (La. 3/9/07), 951 So.2d 1058, 1070.

1 As required by the article, we permitted the parties an opportunity to request oral argument and
entertained plaintiffs’ request for argument. After careful consideration, we found oral argument
was unnecessary under the facts of this case and therefore el ected to exercise our discretion to
consider the matter on written briefs only.

3

Duty is a question of law . Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc ., 455 So.2d
1364, 1371 (La. 1984) . In general, s tore owners owe a duty to patrons to take
reasonable care for their safety, although they ar e not the insurer of the patron’ s
safety. Brock v. Winn Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 617 So.2d 1234, 1237 (La.App. 3 Cir.
1993), writ denied, 620 So.2d 848 (La. 1993). The jurisprudence has recognized that
the duty of reasonable care requires the storeowner to protect against the probability
of injuries foreseeable in law , which has been defined as “those risks that are
probable and foreseeable, not those risks which are merely foreseeable in fact as
possible.” Mayeur v. Time Saver, Inc ., 484 So.2d 192, 195 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1986),
writ denied, 486 So.2d 751, 753 (La. 1986). Applying this reasoning, courts have
held the st ore owner’s “duty to provide its patrons a safe entranceway does not
encompass the risk that a motorist will negligently drive her car from the parking
lot, over the curb, across the walkway and into a patron about to enter the store. ”
Mayeur, 484 So.2d at 195; see also Estate of Loveless v. Gay , 41,575 (La.App. 2
Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 233; Millet on Behalf of Millet v. Knockum, 503 So.2d 51
(La. App. 5 Cir. 1987), writ denied, 503 So.2d 1008 (La. 1987).
Considering the facts of the instant case, we find it was not foreseeable for
Aaron’s to anticipate that a driver would mistakenly accelerate her vehicle from the
parking lot into the wall of its shop and cause video poker machines to fall, resulting
in injury to customers within the shop. Although p laintiffs presented evidence of
minor traffic accidents in the parking lot in the past, they presented no evidence of
any prior accidents of this type or magnitude.
We have long recognized that rules of conduct are “designed to protect some
persons under some circumstances against some risks,” but “[s]eldom does a rule
protect every victim against every risk that may befall him . . . .” Gresham v.
Davenport, 537 So. 2d 1144, 1147 (La. 1989) (quoting M alone, Ruminations on
Cause–In–Fact, 9 Stanford L. Rev. 60, 73 (1956)) [emphasis in original]. The risk

4

that plaintiffs would be injured under the unique facts presented in this case is simply
too remote and attenuated to fall within the scope of the duty Aaron’s owed to its
customers. 2 Therefore, we find Aaron’s is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted. The judgment o f the district
court is reversed. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Aaron’s Investment’s,
Inc. d/b/a Aaron’s Donuts and Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company, and plaintiffs’
action against these defendants is dismissed with prejudice.

2 Our holding should not be read as totally foreclosing the possibility of liability on the part of a
store lessee or owner for injuries to customers resulting from the negligence of third parties under
different facts. For example, courts have held that a store owner may have a duty to protect
customers who are outside of the store or in the proc ess of entering the store from negligent
motorists. Parish v. L.M. Daigle Oil Com pany, 98-1716 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/23/99), 742 So.2d 18 ;
Martin v. Watson’s Grocery, 615 So.2d 999 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1993).
3 Because of this holding, we pretermit discussion of whether Aaron’s had custody or control over
the parking lot.