Betty Laffitte v. D&J Commercial Properties, LLC & EMC Property & Casualty Company

Judgment rendered August 14, 2019.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 52,823-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

BETTY LAFFITTE Plaintiff-Appellant

versus

D&J COMMERCIAL Defendants-Appellees
PROPERTIES, LLC & EMC
PROPERTY & CASUALTY
COMPANY

*****

Appealed from the
Second Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Claiborne, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 41,127

Honorable Jenifer Ward Clason, Judge

*****

NICHOLSON LAW FIRM, LLC Counsel for Appellant
By: Jeff Nicholson

ROZAS LAW FIRM, LLC
By: Gregg A. Rozas
Paul J. Tanner

LUNN IRION LAW FIRM LLC Counsel for Appellees
By: James A. Mijalis
W. Orie Hunter, III

*****

Before MOORE, PITMAN, and THOMPSON, JJ.

MOORE, J.

Betty Laffitte appeals a summary judgment that dismissed her tort

claim arising from a trip-and-fall in a parking lot. For the reasons expressed,

we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On a Friday morning in June 2016, Ms. Laffitte went to the Bill’s

Dollar Store in Homer, La., riding as a passenger in her sister Debra

Plunkett’s Dodge Charger. They parked in the handicap space that was

closest to the entrance of the store. This space pointed at a 45-degree angle

to a grassy median or “island” that was bordered on three sides by a 5-inch

standard curb and on the fourth side by a concrete ramp running some 21

inches out into the parking lot. Ms. Laffitte testified that she had been to

Bill’s about 20 times, but had never used this particular space before.

Ms. Laffitte exited the Charger, crossed the access aisle (the striped

space adjacent to every handicap parking space), and, after she got past the

island, turned left to walk directly into the front door of Bill’s. However,

she did not notice that the ramp crossed at that spot. She stumbled on it,

falling down and breaking her hip.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Laffitte filed this suit against D&J Commercial Properties LLC,

the owner of the shopping center, and EMC Property & Casualty, its insurer

(collectively, “D&J”). She alleged that the curb contained a defective

condition that posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and that D&J knew or

should have known about this condition but failed to correct it or warn about

it.

D&J moved for summary judgment contending that Ms. Laffitte could

not prove either defect or knowledge, elements required by La. C.C. art.

2317.1. In support, it attached portions of Ms. Laffitte’s deposition. In

these, Ms. Laffitte disclosed that she suffered from diabetes, has lost all her

right toes and three of her left toes, has no sensation at all in her feet, wears

special diabetic shoes, and is authorized to use handicap parking. She

testified that when she got out of the Charger, she “walked right by there,

thinking * * * it was level. And this right here was not level. It had that

incline.” She admitted there was nothing to prevent her from seeing the

ramp, and she was unaware whether anybody else had ever stumbled on it,

but, “It wasn’t painted nothing showing no danger [sic] right there, the

height there.”

D&J also attached portions of Ms. Plunkett’s deposition, which

mostly confirmed her sister’s testimony. She asserted that Ms. Laffitte

stumbled on a slope “that’s not marked in any way.”

Finally, D&J attached portions of the deposition of Larry D. Nokes

Jr., who had been a tenant of the shopping center since 2005 and its owner

(through D&J, his LLC) since 2015. He testified that around 2006, the prior

owner had overlaid the parking lot and installed the islands, for aesthetic

purposes; the ramp at the end of each island was so tractors could get onto

the raised portion and mow the grass. Further, nobody had ever complained

to him about the area, and to his knowledge nobody had ever fallen on the

ramp.

Ms. Laffitte opposed the motion, arguing generally that every case

involving an analysis of unreasonable risk must be determined by its unique

facts and circumstances, Broussard v. State, 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13), 113 So.
2

3d 175, and was probably not subject to resolution by summary judgment.

She argued the ramp was “unusual,” posed a hidden danger, and had existed

long enough to charge D&J with knowledge of it. In support, she offered

the affidavit of Philip Beard, P.E., a retired civil engineer in Alexandria,

Louisiana. He recapitulated the motion for summary judgment and the three

depositions; quoted long passages of La. Fire Marshal regulations, showing

that these adopted Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) accessibility

standards in October 2011; and then quoted long passages of ADA Title III,

28 CFR Part 36. He concluded that the parking lot did not comply with

ADA because it (1) lacked an accessible route leading from an accessible

parking space, (2) had an excessive change in level in an accessible route,

and (3) lacked a required accessible route across traffic lanes. In his view,

the ramp violated ADA, posed an unreasonable risk of harm, was not open

and obvious, and was something D&J should have known about. He

attached several black-and-white photos of the lot, and his survey of the

handicap space and island where Ms. Laffitte fell.

D&J responded, chiefly arguing that ADA has no bearing on whether

a defect existed, Gauthier v. City of New Iberia, 2006-341 (La. App. 3 Cir.

9/27/06), 940 So. 2d 915. It also cited this court’s recent opinion of Nugent

v. Car Town of Monroe Inc., 50,910 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/28/16), 206 So. 3d

369, as showing the proper analysis under Art. 2317.1 and the conclusion

that even a 7½-inch perpendicular drop-off from a front door is not a defect.

ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT

At the hearing, the court asked Ms. Laffitte’s lawyer if any case held

that the knowledge element of Art. 2317.1 requires a trial, and prohibits the

use of summary judgment. Counsel replied that he had none. However,
3

D&J’s lawyer offered that summary judgment has indeed been affirmed on

the issue, as in Boutall v. Christakis, PM, Co., 17-402 (La. App. 5 Cir.

12/27/17), 236 So. 3d 1268. The court granted summary judgment, stating

that with no prior incidents, the plaintiff failed to establish the defendant’s

knowledge.

THE APPELLANT’S POSITION

Ms. Laffitte has appealed, raising one assignment of error: the trial

court erred in granting summary judgment despite genuine issues of material

fact as to whether the ramp presented an unreasonable risk of harm and

whether D&J knew or should have known about the defective condition.

She concedes that under La. C.C. art. 2317.1, she is required to prove (1) the

thing was in the defendant’s custody and control, (2) the thing contained a

defect which presented an unreasonable risk of harm to others, and (3) the

defendant knew or should have known of the defect. She shows that the first

element of La. C.C. art. 2317.1, custody and control, is not at issue.

As to the second element, an unreasonable risk of harm, she argues

that this finding is fact-based, and contends (without citation of authority)

that “the granting of summary judgment is inappropriate.” Further, the ramp

was “almost impossible to see” and the parking lot had a “hidden elevation

change.” She cites Mr. Beard’s conclusion that the parking lot violated

ADA and other applicable building codes, and a statute, La. R.S. 40:1744

(“Nothing in this part shall be construed to relieve any person of his

responsibility to comply with the ADA”). She submits that various cases

have indeed used ADA standards to determine liability,1 and urges that the

1
Walters v. City of W. Monroe, 49,502 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/4/15), 162 So. 3d 419,
writ denied, 2015-0440 (La. 5/15/15), 170 So. 3d 161; Cline v. Cheema, 2011-1029 (La.
4

ADA violation is highly relevant to the inquiry. She further argues that

under the risk-utility analysis of Broussard v. State, supra, the utility of the

ramp was virtually nil; the paramount social value was to provide

handicapped persons with safe access to their destinations; and the cost of

remedying it was minimal. She contends that all these facts create a genuine

issue whether the parking lot contained a defect that posed an unreasonable

risk of harm.

As to the third element of an Art. 2317.1 case, knowledge, Ms.

Laffitte simply disputes the court’s ruling that D&J did not know or have

reason to know about this defect. She argues that D&J simply must have

known, as it had been a tenant since 2005, watched the construction of the

islands in 2006, and had been owner of the lot since 2015. She concedes

that Mr. Nokes testified he was aware of no prior falls on the ramp, but urges

this is not sufficient to exclude a genuine issue of material fact.2 She

concludes that the summary judgment should be reversed.

APPLICABLE LAW

The 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. Murphy v. Savannah, 2018-0991 (La. 5/8/19), __ So. 3d

__; Schultz v. Guoth, 2010-0343 (La. 1/19/11), 57 So. 3d 1002. After an

opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment shall be

App. 4 Cir. 2/22/12), 85 So. 3d 260, writ denied, 2012-0666 (La. 5/4/12), 170 So. 3d 161;
Irsch v. Argonaut Great Central Ins. Co., 02-988 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/28/03), 841 So. 2d
831.
2
In support, she cites Calcagno v. Kuebel, Fuchs P’ship, 01-691 (La. App. 5 Cir.
11/14/01), 802 So. 2d 746, a case in which, after a full trial on the merits, the district
court found that a 3¼-inch curb leading into a bingo parlor posed an unreasonable risk of
harm, even though the owner testified that there had been no trips or falls on the curb in
the preceding nine years.
5

granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show 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). The summary

judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination of every action, except certain domestic actions; the procedure

is favored and shall be construed to accomplish these ends. La. C.C.P. art.

966 A(2). Although summary judgment procedure is favored, it is not a

substitute for trial on the merits. S.J. v. Lafayette Parish Sch. Bd., 2006-

2862 (La. 6/29/07), 959 So. 2d 884; Bloxham v. HDI-Gerling America Ins.

Co., 52,177 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/27/18), 251 So. 3d 601.

A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of

pointing out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or

more elements essential to the plaintiff’s claim. Thereafter, if the plaintiff

fails to produce factual support to establish that he will be able to satisfy his

evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact.

La. C.C.P. art. 966 D(1); Gifford v. Arrington, 2014-2058 (La. 11/26/14),

153 So. 3d 999; Dean v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 51,243 (La. App.

2 Cir. 4/5/17), 217 So. 3d 611. Mere speculation is not sufficient to create a

genuine issue as to an essential element of the plaintiff’s case and defeat a

properly supported motion for summary judgment. Gifford v. Arrington,

supra; Mansoor v. Jazz Casino Co., 2012-1546 (La. 9/21/12), 98 So. 3d 795;

Brown v. City of Monroe, 47,396 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/1/12), 103 So. 3d 486.

A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, with the appellate

court applying the same criteria that govern the district court’s decision to

grant or deny, namely, whether there is any genuine issue of material fact

6

and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Murphy v.

Savannah, supra.

Liability for injury caused by defective things is regulated by La. C.C.

art. 2317.1, which provides, in pertinent part:

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. * * *

Thus, to recover damages caused by a defective thing, the plaintiff

must prove (1) the thing was in the defendant’s custody, (2) the thing

contained a defect which presented an unreasonable risk of harm to others,

(3) the defective condition caused the damage, and (4) the defendant knew

or should have known of the defect. Perkins v. Air U Shreveport LLC,

52,093 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/23/18), 249 So. 3d 187; Wells v. Town of Delhi,

51,222 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/5/17), 216 So. 3d 1095, writ denied, 2017-0753

(La. 9/22/17), 227 So. 3d 821. If the plaintiff fails to provide proof of any

one of these elements, her claim fails. Owens v. McIlhenny Co., 2018-754

(La. App. 3 Cir. 3/27/19), 269 So. 3d 839; Scott v. Galleria Oper. Co., 17-

104 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/15/17), 230 So. 3d 682, writ denied, 2017-2080 (La.

2/9/18), 236 So. 3d 1262.

In considering whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous, the

courts apply a risk-utility balancing test, including the following factors: (1)

the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude

of the harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition;

(3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff’s

activities in terms of societal utility or whether the activities were dangerous
7

by nature. Bufkin v. Felipe’s La. LLC, 2014-0288 (La. 10/15/14), 171 So. 3d

851; Broussard v. State, supra. Generally speaking, a defendant does not

have a duty to protect against that which is obvious and apparent, i.e., an

alleged hazard that is open and obvious to everyone who may potentially

encounter it. Bufkin v. Felipe’s La., supra; Broussard v. State, supra. A

pedestrian has a duty to see that which should be seen and is bound to

observe his course to see if his pathway is clear. Bufkin v. Felipe’s La.,

supra; Stevens v. City of Shreveport, 49,437 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/19/14), 152

So. 3d 1071, writ denied, 2015-1097 (La. 4/17/15), 168 So. 3d 399, cert.

denied, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 154, 193 L. Ed. 2d 114 (2015).

DISCUSSION

The district court’s oral ruling focused on the element of notice under

Art. 2317.1: “I didn’t see any information provided in these motion papers

that would indicate to the Court that the landowner in this case, D&J

Commercial Property LLC, knew or had reason to know that this was a

defect.” On de novo review, we find no legal error in this conclusion. The

owner, Mr. Nokes, testified that since he first came to the property, in 2005,

no one had ever complained about the area, fallen over the ramp, or filed suit

about the condition of the parking lot. Ms. Laffitte admitted having no

knowledge that anyone else had ever fallen in the area, had a problem with

it, or complained about the ramp; her sister, Ms. Plunkett, also had no

knowledge of any prior incidents. The expert, Mr. Beard, carefully surveyed

the parking lot and analyzed ADA, but he offered no evidence that the

defects he perceived had ever posed any problem to anybody. Notably, Ms.

Laffitte did not offer affidavits or depositions of current or prior tenants of

the shopping center who may have had knowledge of such events. The
8

summary judgment evidence is not sufficient to create a genuine issue as to

the essential element of D&J’s knowledge.

Contrary to Ms. Laffitte’s assertions in the district court, the issue of

knowledge under Art. 2317.1 does not automatically preclude or prohibit

disposition by summary judgment. This court and others have affirmed

summary judgments where the defendants denied any knowledge of prior

incidents or complaints and the plaintiffs failed to produce any factual

support that would prove such knowledge. Ladner v. Trinity Group Ltd.,

45,937 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/16/11), 57 So. 3d 1197, writ denied, 2011-0580

(La. 4/29/11), 62 So. 3d 115; Nicholson v. Horseshoe Entm’t, 46,081 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 3/2/11), 58 So. 3d 565, writ denied, 2011-0679 (La. 5/20/11), 63

So. 3d 980; Owens v. McIlhenny Co., supra; Scott v. Galleria Oper. Co.,

supra; Boutall v. Christakis, PM, supra; Boutin v. Roman Catholic Church

of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, 14-313 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/29/14), 164 So.

3d 243, writ denied, 2014-2495 (La. 2/13/15), 159 So. 3d 469. Such is the

case here.

Ms. Laffitte further argues that Mr. Nokes had been a tenant since

2005, watched the construction of the parking lot in 2006, and purchased the

shopping center in 2015, giving him sufficient time to be charged with

knowledge of the defective condition. However, given that the ramp was

entirely open and obvious, and that nobody had ever lodged an actual

complaint about it, the court cannot indulge in speculation that Ms. Laffitte

might eventually uncover some proof of knowledge or that a factfinder

might disbelieve Mr. Nokes. Gifford v. Arrington, supra; Mansoor v. Jazz

Casino Co., supra; Brown v. City of Monroe, supra.

9

We recognize that the expert, Mr. Beard, stated in affidavit that had

Mr. Nokes contacted a “licensed architect or engineer who had proper

knowledge of [ADA] for providing minimum protection for patron

pedestrians,” he would have been aware of its noncompliance. However,

technical violation of a code does not necessarily make the thing

unreasonably dangerous. Nugent v. Car Town of Monroe, supra (building

code); Primeaux v. Best Western Plus Houma Inn, 2018-0841 (La. App. 1

Cir. 2/28/19), __ So. 3d __ (ADA); Gauthier v. City of New Iberia, supra

(ADA). Again, with a ramp that was open and obvious, and with no proof

of prior incidents or complaints, we find that the minor violation identified

by Mr. Beard is not factual support that would prove that D&J knew or

should have known that its parking lot was defective. On de novo review,

we find no error.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed, the summary judgment is affirmed. All

costs are to be paid by the plaintiff, Betty Laffitte.

AFFIRMED.

10