Carl Ravey v. Rockworks, LLC

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-1305

CARL RAVEY

VERSUS

ROCKWORKS, LLC, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20113689
HONORABLE GLENNON P. EVERETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Billy Howard Ezell, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Michael J. Remondet, Jr.
Jeansonne & Remondet
P.O Box 91530
Lafayette, LA 70509
(337) 237-4370
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Rockworks, LLC
Colony Speciality Ins. Co.

Kilyun Luke Williamson
Williamson, Fontenot & Campbel
343 Royal St.
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
(225) 383-4010
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Carl Ravey

SAUNDERS, J.

This case involves a suit by the patron of a rock climbing facility against the

facility for negligence in training and supervision. The trial court granted the

facility’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the suit. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On August 14, 2010, Plaintiff-Appellant, Carl Ravey (“Ravey”), as a

mentor for youth, was visiting Lafayette, Louisiana with the Civil Air Patrol,

which operates out of Ascension Parish, Louisiana. The Civil Air Patrol is

comprised of children aged twelve to eighteen. The group was in Lafayette for a

training exercise at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. While in Lafayette,

the group of sixteen young men and women, with their adult chaperones, and with

a Civil Air Patrol Unit from Hammond, Louisiana, visited Rok Haus to use the

climbing facilities.

Upon their arrival, the participants paid their individual fees and initiated a

group safety training exercise with Adelle Anderson (“Anderson”), one of the

employees at Rok Haus that evening. The attendees received training and

instruction on climbing safety and the safe use of climbing equipment in a fifteen

to twenty minute safety meeting known as a “belay check.” Every climber at Rok

Haus is harnessed and equipped with a safety rope, which is attended to and

operated by a “belayer,” who controls the safety rope through a locking device

known as a Grigri. The belayer’s job is to look after the climber’s ropes and to

operate the Grigri. In order to release the rope to allow a climber to descend, the

belayer must pull a lever on the side of the Grigri.

Following safety training, Ravey began to climb the rock wall while tethered

to his belayer, David Kelley (“Kelley”), a fourteen-year-old member of the Civil

Air Patrol. The group climbed for approximately forty-five minutes when Ravey,

upon reaching the top of the wall, a distance of approximately twenty to twenty-

four feet from the ground, fell almost all the way to the ground. He was partially

suspended, but fell far enough such that his leg impacted the floor and was injured.

As Ravey fell, the safety rope fed freely through the locking device indicating that

Kelley was holding the lever in the open position. When Kelley released the lever,

the Grigri locking device engaged and the rope arrested Ravey’s fall, but Ravey’s

leg had already made contact with the floor and was injured.

Ravey brought this action alleging negligence on the part of Rok Haus and

its affiliates/insurer. Rok Haus filed a motion for summary judgment alleging no

duty was breached on the part of Rok Haus and that there was no genuine issue of

material fact so judgment was proper as a matter of law. The trial court granted the

motion for summary judgment and dismissed Ravey’s claims. Ravey appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR:

Ravey sets forth the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment as there is

an increased duty to provide training and supervision when minors are

involved in an inherently dangerous activity.

2. The trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment as there

are genuine issues of material fact regarding the adequacy of training

received by the Ravey party prior to engaging in a hazardous activity and

regarding the adequacy of the supervision provided after training.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Standard of Review

When an appellate court reviews a district court’s judgment on a motion for

summary judgment, it applies the de novo standard of review, “using the same

criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is
2

appropriate, i.e., whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the

mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Supreme Serv. & Specialty Co.,

Inc. v. Sonny Greer, 06-1827, p. 4 (La. 5/22/07), 958 So.2d 634, 638.

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when “the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admission on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the

mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 966. “[I]f

reasonable persons could only reach one conclusion, then there is no need for trial

on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate.” Hines v. Garrett, 04-806, p.

1 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 764, 765-66 (quoting Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake

Hosp., Inc., 93-2512, p. 27 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730, 751). A fact is “material”

when “its existence or nonexistence may be essential to plaintiff’s cause of action

under the applicable theory of recovery.” Smith, 639 So.2d at 751.

1. Heightened Duty

The first issue raised on appeal deals with the issue of negligence on the part

of Rok Haus. In order for liability to attach under a duty-risk analysis, a plaintiff

must prove five separate elements: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) cause-in-fact, (4) scope

of duty/scope of risk, and (5) actual damages. Pinsonneault v. Merch. & Farmers

Bank & Trust Co., 01-2217 (La. 4/3/02), 816 So.2d 270.

“Duty is a question of law. Simply put, the inquiry is whether the plaintiff

has any law--statutory, jurisprudential, or arising from general principles of fault--

to support his claim.” Faucheaux v. Terrebonne Consol. Government, 615 So.2d

289, 292 (La.1993). The duty owed to an invitee “is that of reasonable and

ordinary care, which includes the prior discovery of reasonably discoverable

conditions of the premises that may be unreasonably dangerous, and correction

thereof or a warning to the invitee of the danger.” Alexander v. Gen. Acc. Fire &
3

Life Assur. Corp., 98 So.2d 730, 732 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1957). “[M]embers of [gyms]

are owed a duty of reasonable care to protect them from injury on the premises.”

Thomas v. Sport City, Inc., 31,994 (La.App. 2 Cir. 06/16/99), 738 So.2d 1153,

1157. “This duty necessarily includes a general responsibility to ensure that their

members know how to properly use gym equipment.” Id.

Ravey argues that rock climbing at Rok Haus is an unreasonably dangerous

activity such that it requires a heightened duty. In support of this argument, he

cites Prier v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 351 So.2d 265 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1977), writ

denied, 352 So.2d 1042 (La.), where the court found that a greater degree of care

must be exercised by a school if a student uses an inherently dangerous object or

engages in an activity where it is reasonably foreseeable that an accident or injury

may occur.

In Prier, the court stated that a teacher could not be “liable in damages

unless it is shown that he or she, by exercising the degree of supervision required

by the circumstances, might have prevented the act which caused the damage, and

did not do so.” Prier, 351 So.2d at 268. “It is also essential to recovery that there

be proof of negligence in failing to provide the required supervision and proof of a

causal connection between that lack of supervision and the accident.” Id. It

further explained:

Again, the school board cannot foresee and guard against all the
dangers incident to the rashness of children. It is not the insurer of the
lives or safety of children. The school board, through the principals
and/or the teachers, are expected to take reasonable precautions and
care to avoid injury to the students.

Id at 269 (quoting Whitfield v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 43 So.2d 47

(La.App. 1 Cir. 1949)).

As with school boards, gyms are not the insurers of the lives or safety of the

patrons of the club. See Gatti v. World Wide Health Studios of Lake Charles, Inc.,
4

323 So.2d 819 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1975). A gym cannot be expected to foresee or

guard against all dangers incident to the rashness of its patrons. Furthermore, the

gym must only take reasonable precautions under the circumstances to avoid injury.

To prove negligence on the part of Rok Haus, Ravey must show both a failure to

provide reasonable training and supervision under the circumstances, as well as

proof of a causal connection between this lack of reasonable training/supervision

and the accident.

As a gym, Rok Haus owed a duty of reasonable care under the

circumstances. The equipment was visually inspected prior to usage and was

functioning properly after the incident. 1 Ravey and Kelley were given proper

instructions on how to climb the wall and use the equipment properly. Ravey and

Kelley were also observed using the equipment to lower climbers properly before

they were allowed to climb and belay by themselves. During the time the group

was climbing prior to the accident, two Rok Haus employees observed the group to

ensure they were using the gym’s equipment properly. Ravey made five or six

successful climbs on the wall of the gym prior to the accident.

It cannot be said that Rok Haus acted unreasonably in training its patrons on

the proper use of the climbing equipment and in assisting the patrons with the

equipment. Rok Haus employees provided the usual training to Ravey and his

belayer. The employees observed them using the equipment properly before

allowing them to climb on their own. The Rok Haus employees also continued to

supervise the climbers after training. There is no evidence that the measures taken

by Rok Haus’ employees to protect its patrons were inadequate under the

circumstances and that a lack of supervision/training caused the accident. There

1
The particular Grigri (hand brake) in question remained in use for approximately one
year after the incident.
5

has not been a showing of both a failure to provide proper supervision and training

along with a causal link to the incident in question. As such, there is no evidence

that Rok Haus breached its duty of as a gym owner. Because the first element of

negligence has not been sustained, the other four will not be addressed.

2. Adequacy of Training & Supervision

The final issue raised on appeal is whether there is a genuine issue of

material fact as to the adequacy of training and supervision provided by Rok Haus.

The existence of evidence as to inadequacy of training and supervision is essential

to plaintiff’s cause of action. Without evidence as to said inadequacy, summary

judgment was proper. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 966.

Rok Haus mandates a “belay check” safety session before any patrons climb

the rock walls. During the belay check, the patrons are assisted with donning their

harnesses and fastening themselves to the safety ropes. When a patron is climbing

the wall, he is attached to a rope that runs up to a pulley anchored to the ceiling.

From the pulley, the rope runs down to the belayer. The belayer wears a harness

which is anchored to the floor and attached to the Grigri, through which the rope

from the ceiling pulley runs. The function of the Grigri is to clamp the rope if the

climber should fall. It is designed such that it is automatically clamps the rope if

there is a sudden pull on the rope. In order to feed slack to the climber so that he

may descend, the belayer must manually pull a lever to release the clamp on the

rope.

The members of the Civil Air Patrol were instructed in pairs. Ravey and

Kelly were given instructions on how to climb the wall and use the equipment

properly. When climbing higher than ten feet along the wall, as Ravey was doing,

climbers and belayers are required to wear harnesses attached to a safety rope.

After instructions and assistance in donning the protective gear, the climber and
6

belayer were instructed in the proper method of belaying. Thereafter, the belayers

handle the ropes under the instructors’ supervision.

Once the instructor determines the belayer can handle the safety ropes

correctly, the belayers are instructed in the proper procedure for lowering a climber.

The belayers must then operate the rope and the Grigri under the supervision of an

instructor. After demonstrating an ability to belay the instructor, the belayers are

allowed to belay volunteer climbers in the group under the supervision of the

instructor.

This safety training session lasted approximately fifteen to twenty minutes.

The members of the Civil Air Patrol group were individually instructed in safe

climbing and belaying techniques and were observed operating the equipment

properly before being allowed to climb and belay on their own. After receiving

their safety training in the proper methods of belaying, Ravey, Kelley, and the rest

of the Civil Air Patrol group climbed for forty-five minutes to an hour. During this

time, two supervisors were present who observed the group to ensure that they

were using the gym’s equipment properly. Ravey made five or six climbs on the

wall prior to his accident.

There is no evidence to suggest that Rok Haus did not act reasonably in

training its patrons on the proper use of the climbing equipment and in assisting the

patrons in donning the equipment. Each patron who belays (operates the safety

control device, the Grigri, and controls the safety rope) is personally instructed on

the proper belaying techniques and is observed to ensure that the patron is capable

of operating the equipment correctly before they are allowed to belay on their own.

Furthermore, after completion of the safety check and practice, the climbers

remained under the supervision and watch of two supervisors. The absence of

evidence as to the material facts of inadequate training and inadequate supervision
7

makes summary judgment appropriate. As such, summary judgment as to the

adequacy and training and supervision was proper.

We note that rock climbing is a recreational activity that involves substantial

risk. Many other recreational activities such as weight lifting and swimming also

involve a substantial degree of risk. The risk associated with these and other

physically-challenging sports are well recognized. The duty on the gym operator,

when these types of sports are conducted, is that of providing a sound and secure

environment for undertaking a clearly risky form of recreation and not that of

removing every element of danger inherent in rock climbing, weight lifting, or

swimming. The duty imposed on the gym is one of reasonable care under the

circumstances. Ravey focuses on the age of the boy holding the rope and argues

that he should have been given more training because of his age. However, Ravey

points to no authority suggesting that fourteen year olds are not adequately mature

to perform this kind of activity or that the training was inadequate in this instance.

The record contains no evidence to suggest the training was inadequate or that a

person of fourteen years would need more training than was given to teach him to

perform. It is this total absence of evidence that drives the summary judgment

process and, in this case, compels affirmation.

CONCLUSION:

The record contains no evidence to suggest that the duty of Rok Haus to

provide training and supervision was not done reasonably under the circumstances.

Furthermore, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the adequacy of

training received by the Ravey party prior to engaging in climbing and regarding

the adequacy of the supervision provided after training.

Costs of this appeal are assessed to Ravey.

AFFIRMED
8