Victoria Collins v. Shelter General Insurance Company, Bed Rock Services, LLC, and Ronald Scott

VICTORIA COLLINS NO. 2024 CW 0192

VERSUS Page 1 of 2

SHELTER GENERAL INSURANCE JULY 12, 2024
COMPANY, BED ROCK SERVICES,
LLC AND RONALD SCOTT

In Re: Shelter General Insurance Company, Bed Rock Services,
LLC and Ronald Scott, applying for supervisory writs,
22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No.
202213553.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HESTER, MILLER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s February 20, 2024 judgment
denying the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants,
Shelter General Insurance Company, Bed Rock Services, LLC, and

Ronald Scott, is reversed. Plaintiff admitted in her deposition
that she saw the bucket truck prior to her accident. Plaintiff' s
husband also saw the bucket truck, testifying that unless someone
had a vision problem, the bucket truck was visible to those
approaching. The photographs in evidence clearly show the truck
parked on the bike trail as confirmed by Plaintiff. The testimony
also indicates the bucket truck was not running at the time of the
accident. Plaintiff' s husband successfully navigated around the
bucket truck by taking a path through the grass. Plaintiff stated
she chose not to get off her bike to maneuver around the truck
because she was concerned that she may fall off the bike and

encounter a snake. Plaintiff also testified that she was certain
she didn' t hit anything prior to passing out.

Whether a claim arises in negligence under La. Civ. Code art.
2315 or in premises liability under La. Civ. Code art. 2317. 1, the

traditional duty/ risk analysis is the same. See Farrell v. Circle
K Stores, Inc., 2022- 00849 ( La. 3/ 17/ 23), 359 So. 3d 467, 473- 74.
As reaffirmed by the Farrell court,
under the duty/ risk analysis
a plaintiff must prove
1) five elements: (
the defendant had a duty
to conform his conduct to a specific standard ( the duty element);
2) the defendant' s conduct failed to conform to the appropriate
standard ( the breach element); ( 3) the defendant' s substandard

conduct was a cause - in -fact of the plaintiff' s injuries ( the cause -
in -fact -element); ( 4) the defendant' s substandard conduct was a

legal cause of the plaintiff' s the
injuries ( scope of duty
element); and ( 5) proof of actual damages ( the damages element).
Id. at 473. Whether there is a breach of the duty owed is a mixed
question of law and fact which is assessed through application of
the risk/ utility balancing test which evaluates: ( 1) the utility
of the complained of condition; ( 2) the likelihood and magnitude
of harm, including the obviousness
apparentness of the and

conditions; ( 3) the cost of preventing the harm; and ( 4) the nature
of the plaintiff' s activities in terms of social utility or whether
the activities were dangerous by nature. Id.

NO. 2024 CW 0192

PAGE 2 OF 2

The utility of the complained of condition in this case was
established. Defendant, Ronald Scott, was on the path removing
broken limbs or dangerous trees that could fall, to make the path
safe. The likelihood of harm factor includes a consideration of
the open and obviousness of the condition. Farrell, 359 So. 3d at
474. The size of the allegedly dangerous condition is relevant,
and the more obvious the risk, the less likely it is to cause
injury because it will be avoided. Id. The evidence shows this
was a large bucket truck on the path, clearly visible to all who
may have encountered it. Accordingly, we find the likelihood and
magnitude of the harm to be minimal. While there is no specific
evidence as to the cost of preventing the harm, we note that
defendant was hired by St. Tammany Parish to clear debris, and

there is no evidence to suggest an alternative method or the costs
thereof. As to the nature of plaintiff' s activity, whether riding
a bicycle is or is not dangerous in nature is debatable.

After applying the risk -utility factors, we find defendants
met their initial burden of pointing out the absence of factual
support for the breach element of plaintiffs' claims, and

plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient factual support to
establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or

that defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the
claims asserted by plaintiffs against defendants, Shelter General
Insurance Company, Bed Rock Services, LLC, and Ronald Scott, are
dismissed with prejudice.

PMC

CHH

Miller, J., concurs.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT