Deloris McConnell v. Homesite Ins. Co.
Deloris McConnell v. Homesite Ins. Co., No. CA-0014-0371 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. Oct. 1, 2014).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Joseph v. City of New Orleans 842 So. 2d 420
- Dronette v. Shelter Ins. Co. 998 So. 2d 942
- Hunt v. Golden Corral Corp. 116 So. 3d 1035
- Beauclair v. Travelers Insurance Co. 480 So. 2d 796
- Miller v. Miller 481 So. 2d 1337
Opinion text
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
14-371
DELORIS MCCONNELL
VERSUS
HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20126735
HONORABLE PATRICK LOUIS MICHOT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE
**********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Marc T. Amy, and
Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
Charles Louis Chassaignac IV
Matthew L. Mann
Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, L.L.P.
343 Third St., Suite 202
Baton Rouge, LA 70801-1309
(225) 383-8900
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Homesite Insurance Company
Linda K. Carrier
Clinton Charles Carrier
Carl Joseph Rachal
Simon Law Offices
122 Representative Row
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 232-2000
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Deloris McConnell
GREMILLION, Judge.
The plaintiff/appellant, Ms. Deloris McConnell, appeals the grant of
summary judgment dismissing her tort claim against Linda Carrier, Clinton
Charles Carrier, and their insurer, Homesite Insurance Company. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 20, 2012, Ms. McConnell tripped and fell in the Carriers’
driveway. The Carriers are Ms. McConnell’s next door neighbors in Carencro,
Louisiana. Ms. McConnell asserts that the cause of the fall was a hazardous
condition in the driveway, to wit, a one- to two-inch elevation change. As a result
of her fall, Ms. McConnell alleges that she sustained a broken wrist that required
surgical repair.
Ms. McConnell filed suit in December 2012. The Carriers and Homesite
answered the suit and denied Ms. McConnell’s allegations, and further asserted
that the accident was solely caused by Ms. McConnell’s negligence. On
September 27, 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, in
which they argued that Ms. McConnell would be unable to support her claim.
In support of the motion for summary judgment, the defendants introduced
the deposition testimony of Ms. McConnell. According to Ms. McConnell’s
deposition, the accident occurred at approximately 7:00 p.m. Darkness had
descended upon Carencro. Ms. McConnell owed Ms. Carrier $15.00, and she was
going next door to pay Ms. Carrier. This marked only the second occasion that Ms.
McConnell had visited the Carriers.
Ms. McConnell’s home is separated from the Carriers’ by a fence. A
drainage ditch fronts both homes. Accordingly, it is necessary to approach the
Carriers’ home via the driveway. Ms. McConnell was wearing slippers or house
shoes, which she described as similar to “flip flops.” As she proceeded up the
Carriers’ driveway, Ms. McConnell’s slipper “got stuck” in the seam or expansion
joint in the driveway. She fell and broke her wrist.
Ms. McConnell submitted an affidavit with attached photographs of the
Carriers’ driveway that were taken by JoAnn Breaux. In her affidavit, Ms.
McConnell attested that her slipper became caught in “the concrete elevation
change” in the Carriers’ driveway. At no point in her deposition or affidavit did
Ms. McConnell provide a measurement or estimate of the extent of this elevation
change.
At the hearing of the motion, the Carriers objected to the photographs, as
they were not taken by the affiant, Ms. McConnell. The trial court sustained their
objection because the photographer, Ms. Breaux, did not authenticate the
photographs. The trial court found that Ms. McConnell had failed to demonstrate
either the existence of a defect or actual knowledge of a defect on the part of the
Carriers. Judgment was granted in favor of the Carriers and Homesite, dismissing
Ms. McConnell’s demand with prejudice and at her cost. This appeal followed.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Ms. McConnell assigns the following errors:
1. The Trial Court committed reversible error and abused its discretion
by failing to find that there were genuine issues as to material fact as it
related to the defective condition upon defendants' driveway and
whether said defect presented an unreasonably dangerous condition.
2. The trial judge abused his discretion and committed reversible error in
failing to consider photographic evidence of the unreasonably
dangerous condition on the grounds that the photographs were not
taken by the plaintiff.
2
ANALYSIS
Delictual liability for trips and falls is governed by La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1,
which reads:
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. Nothing in this Article shall
preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur in an appropriate case.
This article requires, then, proof that the owner or custodian knew or should have
known of the ruin, vice, or defect; that the owner or custodian could have
prevented the damage by the exercise of reasonable care; and that the owner or
custodian failed to exercise reasonable care. When the owner or custodian should
have known of the ruin, vice, or defect is commonly known as “constructive
notice.”
Constructive notice means “the existence of facts which infer
actual knowledge.” La.R.S. 9:2800(D). There is constructive
knowledge if a condition that caused the injury existed for such a
length of time, that the responsible party must have discovered it in
the exercise of ordinary care and diligence. Joseph v. City of New
Orleans, 02–1996 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/5/03), 842 So.2d 420. Thus, the
owner cannot ignore the condition of the owner's property and then
claim release from liability because of this self-imposed ignorance or
lack of diligence.
Dronette v. Shelter Ins. Co., 08-654, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/08), 998 So.2d 942,
945. The mere existence of a defect is insufficient to establish liability; rather, the
defect in question must create an unreasonably dangerous risk. Hunt v. Golden
Corral Corp., 13-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/3/13), 116 So.3d 1035. Louisiana law has
long held that the occurrence of an accident does not create a presumption of
negligence. Beauclair v. Travelers Ins. Co., 480 So.2d 796 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1985),
3
writ denied, 481 So.2d 1337 (1986). Thus, the fact that Mrs. McConnell suffered
an accident raises no inference or presumption of fault on the Carriers’ part.
Summary judgment is governed by La.Code Civ.P. arts. 966 and 967. Under
article 966(C)(2), the movants bear the burden of proof. However, if the movants
will not bear the burden of proof at trial, they must only establish that there is an
absence of factual support for one of the essential elements of the adverse party’s
claim. The burden then shifts to that adverse party to produce factual support
sufficient to establish that she will be able to satisfy her burden of proof at trial.
Our analysis will thus determine whether the defendants demonstrated an absence
of factual support for one or more elements of Ms. McConnell’s claim. If so, we
will then demonstrate whether she produced factual support sufficient to establish
her ability to carry her burden of proof at trial.
Actual or constructive notice is an essential element of proving the Carriers’
liability. Ms. McConnell is burdened with proving that element. Nothing in her
testimony demonstrates that a defect had existed for such a length of time that the
Carriers should have discovered it in the course of exercising ordinary care and
diligence. Her affidavit also fails to address this issue.
Accordingly, Ms. McConnell failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate
that she would be able to carry her burden of proof at trial on the issue of actual or
constructive notice of the defect in question. Summary judgment is appropriate in
this case. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are
taxed to plaintiff/appellant, Deloris McConnell.
AFFIRMED.
4