Lawsuit "Tripped Up" by Open and Obvious Defense

When Casey Krueger and his family went to the pool at the La Quinta Inn & Suites in Baton Rouge, they knew how they wanted to end their day. What the Kruegers (and La Quinta) did not know was that a piece of clear, broken glass was on the bottom of the pool. Mr. Krueger stepped on the glass and experienced a “large and deep cut” that caused permanent loss of some function of his toe. He filed suit alleging that La Quinta was negligent for the defective condition in its pool. Krueger v. La. Quinta Inn & Suites, 18-0052 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/21/18). He also alleged the negligence of La Quinta was self- evident such that the doctrine of res ispa loquitur should apply to impose liability. His claims were rejected by the jury; the Louisiana First Circuit upheld the verdict.

“Res ipsa loquitur” is a Latin phrase that means “the thing speaks for itself.” The doctrine of res ipsa is used where a plaintiff relies solely upon circumstantial evidence to prove negligence. For res ipsa to apply, the plaintiff must: 1) prove that the injury is the kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; 2) eliminate other more probable causes of the injury (such as the conduct of the plaintiff or of third-persons); and 3) show that the negligence of the defendant fell within the scope of the duty owed to the plaintiff. Res ipsa is often cited where the defendant possessed exclusive control of the thing which caused the injury. Id.

In the Krueger case, La Quinta checked the pool twice a day and posted signs that banned glass from the pool area. There was also no evidence that it knew or should have known of the glass in the pool. After all, clear glass in a clear pool is hard to detect. Lacking direct evidence of negligence, the Kruegers hoped the res ipsa doctrine would make their case. With some justification, they contended that broken glass was not to be expected in a hotel pool. However, res ipsa was found not to apply. Because it was “possible that a third party caused broken glass to enter the pool,” the plaintiffs could not establish all three elements to the doctrine.

Collin is a Keogh Cox partner who litigates injury, commercial, and legal malpractice disputes. He lives in nearby Zachary, Louisiana with his wife Melissa and three all too active children. He is an outdoorsman, a league tennis player, a cook, and a hobbyist writer.

It seems intuitive that people have an obligation to avoid potentially harmful conditions that are open and obvious. Nevertheless, treatment of open and obvious conditions in Louisiana law has proved tricky because many cases did not apply a uniform analytical framework. In Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc. and the City of Pineville, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently offered needed guidance on the appropriate analysis for open and obvious conditions.

The plaintiff stopped at a gas station and decided to walk her dog in a nearby grassy area. To get to the grassy area, Farrell had to cross a pool of water that was “approximately the length of a tractor-trailer.” Farrell attempted to jump across the narrowest part of the pool, but slipped and fell. She sued for damages arising from her injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the condition was open and obvious. The trial court and court of appeal denied the defendants’ motion. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the matter and reversed.

In finding that the condition was open and obvious, the court began its analysis by outlining the elements that a plaintiff must establish to recover for damage arising from a defect under Louisiana Civil Code articles 2315, 2316, 2317 and 2317.1:

• That the defendant owed plaintiff a duty to conform its conduct to a specific standard;
• That the defendant breached the duty owed;
• That the defendant’s conduct was the cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries;
• That the defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; and,
• That the plaintiff suffered damages.

The court also highlighted the requirement under La. R.S. 2317.1 that plaintiff show the defendant knew or should have known of the condition before the injury occurred.

The court noted that some courts had assessed whether a condition was open and obvious in the context of whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, while other courts had assessed whether a condition was open and obvious in the context of whether the defendant had breached the duty that was owed. In Farrell, the court found a duty was owed under the code articles referenced above. It clarified that whether a condition was open and obvious should be considered during analysis of whether the duty was breached, pursuant to Louisiana’s “risk/utility” test. This test requires consideration of whether the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm, which considers whether the condition had any social utility; the likelihood and magnitude of harm the condition presented; the cost of preventing the harm; and the nature of the plaintiff’s conduct, including whether plaintiff’s conduct was socially useful or inherently dangerous.

Specifically, whether a condition is open and obvious should be considered in determining the likelihood of harm and magnitude of harm to an objectively reasonable person. The court further advised that the specific nature of the condition should be considered, such as its location and size. In contrast, a plaintiff’s particular and subjective knowledge of the condition is not relevant in determining whether defendant has breached a duty.

The Farrell court applied this analysis to the facts. It found that the pool served no useful purpose. No evidence existed regarding the cost to eliminate the risk. With respect to Farrell’s conduct, the court found that walking a dog was not dangerous by nature and may have an important social function, but this did not weigh heavily in the analysis. However, with respect to whether the condition as open and obvious, the court considered the location of the pool at the edge of the parking lot, the size of the pool, and the fact that it was apparent to all who encountered it. Thus, the condition was open and obvious, and the likelihood of and magnitude of the harm was minimal.

The court concluded that these factors collectively showed the condition was not unreasonably dangerous. The defendants did not breach their duty to plaintiff, and summary judgment should have issued for the defendants. In so holding, the Supreme Court provided clarifying guidance on analysis of open and obvious conditions under Louisiana law.

Case Reference:

Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc. and the City of Pineville, 2022-000849 (La. 3/17/23), --- So.3d ----, 2023 WL 2550503.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently issued a ruling on the application of the "open and obvious" doctrine in slip and fall cases. The facts of Broussard v. State of Louisiana, 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13), presented problems for both sides. A UPS driver tripped and fell over an offset between the floor and an elevator. The elevator in a State building had problems for years. One problem was that the elevator would not align properly between floors causing an offset between the floor and the elevator. However, the UPS driver delivered products to this particular State building daily and was well aware of the problem. At the time of the incident, he noticed that the elevator was not properly aligned but nevertheless attempted to pull a dolly with approximately 300 pounds of computer paper over the offset. The inertia created caused the plaintiff to lose control. Plaintiff sued the State, the owner of the building, for injury to his back.

To recover damages from an owner of a building for a slip and fall, a plaintiff must prove: 1) ownership of the building; 2) owner's knowledge of the defect; 3) that damage could have been prevented by reasonable care; 4) that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care; 5) causation of damages; and 6) that the defect in the building created an unreasonable risk of harm. La. C.C. art. 2322; Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So. 2d 1146 (La. 1983). It was the "unreasonable risk of harm" element that was at issue before the Broussard Court.

Louisiana jurisprudence has created a risk-utility balancing test to determine if a defect in a building poses an unreasonable risk of harm. The risk-utility balance test consists of four factors: 1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of 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 its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature. Dauzet v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So. 2d 1184.

In applying this balancing test, the jury found the State 62% liable and Plaintiff 38% liable for Plaintiff's damage. The court of appeal reversed that decision. It found that, where the Plaintiff knew of the defect, the defect was "open and obvious" such that the State had no duty to protect against the condition.

The Louisiana Supreme Court disagreed. Under the specific facts of the case, the Court found that Plaintiff's knowledge of the defect was insufficient to meet the open and obvious test. According to the Court, for a defect to be considered open and obvious it must be open and obvious to all. "Thus, in order to be open and obvious, the risk of harm should be apparent to all who encounter the dangerous condition." Broussard, p. 17.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the open and obvious question is not based upon the plaintiff's particular state of mind. Such an analysis is akin to assumption of the risk - a theory of law that was omitted when Louisiana enacted its comparative fault regime. Instead, the open and obvious to all standard is, according to Broussard, "sensible . . . and does not undermine the comparative fault regime by allowing a plaintiff's negligence to operate as a bar to recovery in a case where the defendant's conduct poses a risk of harm to the hypothetical blameless plaintiff." Id. p. 18.

The true impact of the Broussard decision remains to be seen. Under one reading, the opinion's impact should be limited to its specific facts. Under any interpretation, Broussard preserves the rule that an allegedly defective condition which is obvious to all will bar recovery to the plaintiff.