Caserta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Caserta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 90 So. 3d 1042 (La. 2012).
Cited by
- John Klumpp and Susan Klumpp Versus Ochsner Clinic Foundation D/B/A Ochsner Health Systems La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
- Evelyn Burlison v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- Leslie Mentel Versus Iris Baltz Margavio Wife of/and Todd Michael Margavio and Xyz Insurance … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
- Sharon Creager Versus Marrero Land and Improvement Association Limited La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
- Saraphine Green v. Breaux Bridge Ventures, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
- Primeaux v. Best W. Plus Houma Inn 274 So. 3d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
- Williams v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 217 So. 3d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
- Helwig v. H.P.B. Inc. 182 So. 3d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- Moore v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. 186 So. 3d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- Ferlicca v. Brookshire Grocery Co. 175 So. 3d 469 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
- Hooper v. Brown 171 So. 3d 995 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
- Williamson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 130 So. 3d 478 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Eisenhardt v. Snook 8 So. 3d 541
- Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc. 995 So. 2d 1184
- Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Board 60 So. 3d 594
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. I,Plaintiff brought a truck to Wal-Mart Tire & Lube Express (“Wal-Mart”) to have new tires mounted on the vehicle. After attempts to remove the lug nut on one of the tires proved unsuccessful, the Wal-Mart technician agreed to take plaintiff to the automotive service area to show him the problem.' The technician gave plaintiff a pair of safety goggles, and at plaintiffs request, agreed to allow plaintiff to use the lug wrench to attempt to loosen the nut. As plaintiff attempted to remove the lug nut, it snapped, causing plaintiff to suffer injury. Subsequently, plaintiff filed the instant suit against Wal-Mart and its insurer. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that Wal-Mart was not responsible for plaintiffs own negligence. The district court denied defendants’ motion, and the court of appeal denied defendants’ application for supervisory writs. This application followed. If the facts of a particular case show that the complained-of condition should be obvious to all, the condition may not be unreasonably dangerous, and the defendant may owe no duty to the plaintiff. Eisenhardt v. Snook, 08-1287 (La.3/17/09), 8 So.3d 541 ; Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 08-0528 (La.12/2/08), 995 So.2d 1184 . In the instant case, plaintiff testified he is a machinist who regularly uses a lug wrench, and typically services his own truck. He admitted he was using his body weight to put pressure on the lug in an attempt to turn it. ^Further, plaintiff conceded the wrench was not defective, and did not break. Based on these undisputed facts, we believe any risk from attempting to remove the frozen lug nut should have been obvious to plaintiff, and could have been avoided through the use of ordinary care. See Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Board, 10-1683 (La.3/15/11), 60 So.3d 594 (holding “[t]he evidence establishes plaintiff was aware of this open and obvious risk” and explaining “[s]he could have easily avoided any risk by using additional care ... ”). Therefore, defendants owe no duty to plaintiff. Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants.