Patricia Anne Jones v. Eti, Inc., Wheeler Tile Construction, Inc., Precision Shoring, LLC, Ross Construction & Remodeling, LLC
Patricia Anne Jones v. Eti, Inc., Wheeler Tile Construction, Inc., Precision Shoring, LLC, Ross Construction & Remodeling, LLC, No. 2024-CA-0520 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Maddox v. Howard Hughes Corp. 268 So. 3d 333
- Smith v. Casino New Orleans Casino 101 So. 3d 507
- Thomas v. Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. 106 So. 3d 1279
Opinion text
PATRICIA ANNE JONES * NO. 2024-CA-0520
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL
ETI, INC., WHEELER TILE * FOURTH CIRCUIT
CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
PRECISION SHORING, LLC, * STATE OF LOUISIANA
ROSS CONSTRUCTION &
REMODELING, LLC *
*
*******
CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:
PATRICIA A. JONES NO. 2024-CA-0521
VERSUS
ETI, INCORPORATED, ABC
INSURANCE COMPANY,
PRECISION SHORING, LLC,
ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, RLH INVESTMENTS,
LLC D/B/A LANDRIEU
CONCRETE SERVICES, DEF
INSURANCE COMPANY, ROSS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND
XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY
RML LEDET, J, DISSENTING WITH REASONS
I would affirm the trial court’s judgment granting Defendants’ summary
judgment motion and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against them. Plaintiff—Patricia
Jones (“Ms. Jones”)—cannot identify what caused her to fall. Ms. Jones, in her
deposition, speculates that the cement hose was “the force” that struck her. Such
speculation is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Samuels v.
United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 14-0505 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/15/14), 2014 WL
5310497 (unpub.) (observing that plaintiff’s “speculation as to the source of the
substance or defect that caused his fall is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of
material fact”); Maddox v. Howard Hughes Corp., 19-0135, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir.
4/17/19), 268 So.3d 333, 339 (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted)
1
(observing that “[a]llegations that a non-moving escalator is more dangerous than
stairs, inferences that since her feet were dry and it was the nearest exit to her
vehicle, the escalator was the cause of her fall, and speculations that the escalator
treads were not the same as stair treads are not sufficient to create a genuine issue
of material fact”).1 For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment
granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissing Ms. Jones’ claims
against them. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
1 See also Smith v. Casino New Orleans Casino, 12-0292, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/3/12), 101
So.3d 507, 514; Thomas v. Caesars Entm’t Operating Co., Inc., 12-1202, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 4
Cir. 1/23/13), 106 So.3d 1279, 1284 (Ledet, J., dissenting).
2