D.S. Monic v. Lafayette General Health System,inc.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

23-308

D.S. MONIC

VERSUS

LAFAYETTE GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20215658
HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

LEDRICKA J. THIERRY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Candyce G. Perret, and Ledricka J. Thierry,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Tracy P. Curtis
The Glenn Armentor Law Corporation
300 Stewart Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 233-1471
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
D.S. Monic

Kyle N. Choate
Gachassin Law Firm
400 East Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 6100
P.O. Box 80369
Lafayette, LA 70598
(337) 235-4576
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Lafayette General Health System, Inc. and LGF Real Estate Investment
Fund Property 1, LLC

THIERRY, Judge.

The Plaintiff, D.S. Monic, appeals the trial court’s grant of Defendants’

motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, a seventy-year-old woman, had a doctor’s appointment on

November 12, 2020, at a medical offices complex in Lafayette, Louisiana. The

complex was owned and operated by Defendants, Lafayette General Health System,

Inc. and LGF Real Estate Investment Fund Property 1, LLC. After completing her

medical appointment, Plaintiff was exiting the complex. Upon approaching the

sliding doors to exit the facility, Plaintiff alleged she tripped and fell on the edge of

a large rug at the entrance to the complex. Plaintiff noted it was not the rug that

patrons first cross when entering the building, but “an extra rug that is inside the

building that [she] first encountered upon her exit of the building. She complained

of the rug’s thickness.” Plaintiff suffered a broken arm as a result of the fall. Due

to health problems, Plaintiff was using a cane to help her walk on that date.

On October 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Damages alleging she

sustained injuries as a result of the fall. On October 31, 2022, Defendants filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment on liability on the grounds that Plaintiff could not

meet her burden of demonstrating (1) the existence of an unreasonable risk of harm;

(2) actual or constructive knowledge of a defect; or (3) that the incident could have

been prevented through the exercise of reasonable care and (4) Defendants failed to

exercise that care. Both parties filed memorandums on the propriety of summary

judgment. A hearing on the motion for summary judgment was set for March 23,

2023. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s suit. No

oral reasons or written reasons for judgment were issued. This appeal followed,

wherein Plaintiff asserts the following assignment of error:

Given that Plaintiff tripped on the edge of a rug defendants had
placed inside its medical offices facility, the trial court erred by
failing to find that the rug’s absent utility rendered it unreasonably
dangerous under the circumstances.

ANALYSIS

Summary judgment is a procedural device properly used when there is no

genuine issue of material fact. Murphy v. Savannah, 18-991 (La. 5/8/19), 282 So.3d

1034; La.Code Civ.P. art. 966. Appellate courts are to review summary judgments

de novo using the same criteria that governs the trial court’s determination of

whether summary judgment is appropriate, i.e., whether there is any genuine issue

of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Wright v. La. Power & Light, 06-1181 (La. 3/9/07), 951 So.2d 1058; La.Code Civ.P.

art. 966(A)(3). Summary judgment procedure is favored and shall be construed “to

secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” La.Code

Civ.P. art. 966(A)(2). A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if the

motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there is no genuine issue as

to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” La.Code

Civ.P. art. 966(A)(3).

Plaintiff argues the rug at issue had no utility, as the rug just inside the sliding

doors “was sufficient to reduce the amount of dirt brought in on patient’s shoes from

outside. Had it been a rainy day, placing a second large rug adjacent to the vestibule

just inside the complex may have then had some utility.” Plaintiff then argues it is

“axiomatic that a sizable share of patrons of a medical office facility that is attached

to an orthopedic office lack ordinary mobility.” As such, Plaintiff maintains a thick

rug in such a facility presents an unreasonable risk of harm. Plaintiff acknowledges

the rug in almost any other setting would not create an unreasonable risk of harm,

2

but here “where patrons like [Plaintiff] have difficulty walking, in the face of the

absent utility of the rug, renders it unreasonably dangerous, and thus ‘defective.’”

Defendants counter that the rug presented no unreasonable risk of harm. It

notes the alleged defect, for the purposes of La.Code Civ.P. art. 2317.1, is a condition

creating an “unreasonable risk of harm.” “The existence of a defect may not be

inferred solely from the fact that an accident occurred; rather, a plaintiff is required

to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a defect and that the

defect caused the plaintiff’s damages.” Thind Enterprises, LLC v. Employers Mut.

Cas. Co., 21-765, p. 15 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/8/22), 344 So.3d 99, 106-07 writ denied,

22-1052 (La. 10/12/22), 348 So.3d 70 (quoting Maddox v. Howard Hughes Corp.,

19-135, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/17/19), 268 So.3d 333, 338).

Plaintiff relies on the recent Louisiana Supreme Court case of Farrell v. Circle

K Stores, Inc., 22-849 (La. 3/17/23), 359 So.3d 467, as support for its position that

the trial court failed to consider the utility of the rug at issue in this case. A review

of that case finds the court in Farrell did not remove the necessity for Plaintiff to

establish that the rug in question created an unreasonably dangerous condition. The

court in Farrell, 359 So.3d at 479-80, stated as follows:

Liability is determined utilizing a duty/risk analysis. Generally,
there exists a duty to maintain one’s property in a reasonably safe
condition and to correct an unreasonably dangerous condition or to
warn of its existence. The question of whether a condition is open and
obvious and, thus, not unreasonably dangerous, is an issue of breach,
not duty. To determine if there has been a breach of a duty owed, courts
are to apply the risk/utility balancing test. The second factor of the
risk/utility balancing test includes the likelihood and magnitude of
harm, which includes the open and obvious nature of the condition.
Summary judgment on the issue of an unreasonably dangerous
condition is warranted upon a finding that no reasonable juror could
have found that the defendant was in breach of the duty. If the defendant
meets that burden of proof, and the plaintiff fails to establish that he or
she will be able to establish the breach element at trial, summary
judgment in favor of the defendant is mandated.

3

The accident occurred at Ochsner Lafayette General Orthopedic Hospital

medical office building, adjacent to the Ochsner Lafayette General Orthopedic

Hospital. Photographs introduced demonstrated the rug had no raised edges, ripples

and was lying flat on the floor. Plaintiff also testified in her deposition as follows:

Q. Okay. So, in breaking down what we were talking about earlier,
you said as you were approaching the rug—I want to find out exactly
what happened. So was there anything on the rug that you saw that it
was protruding or rippled or uneven?

A. No. Just that I had to take a step. And I probably didn’t take a big
enough step. I hit the –

Q. The edge of the rug?

A. The very edge of it.

....

Q. I’m trying to find out if there was something wrong with that rug
which caused you to fall.

A. No, there was nothing wrong. It wasn’t folded or anything. It just
was the way it was[.]

Plaintiff also acknowledged that she had entered into the building the same way and

safely traversed this same rug earlier. With no evidence that the rug created an

unreasonable risk of harm, Plaintiff would be unable to meet her burden of proof at

trial of the existence of a defect and that the defect caused her damages. Thus,

summary judgment was warranted in this matter.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants’

Motion for Summary judgment is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed

against Plaintiff-Appellant, D.S. Monic.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

4