United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30554

Cheryl Romano; Wayne Romano, 

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Jazz Casino Company, L.L.C.; JCC Holding Company II, 

L.L.C.; Harrah's New Orleans Casino; Harrah's New 

Orleans Management Company, L.L.C.; CEOC, L.L.C.; 

Caesars License Company, L.L.C.; Caesars 

Entertainment, Incorporated; Caesars Entertainment 

Operating Company, Incorporated; Caesars Enterprise 

Services, L.L.C.; Caesars Resort Collection, L.L.C.; 

Paul Forcier; Nicholas Reece, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:20-cv-00228

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 1, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30554 Document: 00516263895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
No. 21-30554

2

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiffs in this case assert state-law claims arising out of a slip-andfall in a Louisiana casino. The district court granted summary judgment to 

the defendants. We affirm.

I.

Cheryl Romano and her husband Wayne visited Harrah’s New 

Orleans on January 25, 2019. While there, Mrs. Romano tripped on the 

casino floor. She suffered serious injuries.

The Romanos sued the casino in Louisiana state court, asserting 

claims of merchant liability, strict premises liability, and negligence.

Defendants removed to federal district court.

The district court reviewed security footage documenting the 

incident. It concluded Mrs. Romano tripped over a vehicle display, which 

was an open and obvious hazard. So the court held the Romanos failed to 

create a genuine dispute regarding whether there was an unreasonable risk of 

harm before the accident, and it granted summary judgment to defendants.

The Romanos timely appealed. 

II.

Appellants argue the district court erred by granting summary 

judgment to defendants. We review de novo a district court’s grant of 

summary judgment, applying the same standards as the district court. Jones 

v. New Orleans Regional Physician Hosp. Org., Inc., 981 F.3d 428, 432 (5th Cir. 

2020). Summary judgment is warranted if the movant shows there is no 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 21-30554 Document: 00516263895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
No. 21-30554

3

genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Under Louisiana law, the Romanos bear the burden to prove that a 

condition on the casino’s premises “presented an unreasonable risk of 

harm.” La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.6(B)(1). Louisiana’s courts consider 

“the obviousness and apparentness of the condition” to determine whether 

a condition presents such a risk. Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc., 995 

So. 2d 1184, 1186-87 (La. 2008). A defendant generally has no duty to protect 

against obvious and apparent hazards. See id. at 1186.

Appellants contend they provided sufficient evidence to create a

genuine fact dispute as to the cause of Mrs. Romano’s fall. They say she 

could have tripped over an unsecured electrical cord instead of the display 

itself. And they point to two sources of evidence in support of that 

contention: First is the security footage. Second is evidence of the cord’s 

position after Mrs. Romano’s fall. 

Neither source of evidence is sufficient to preclude summary 

judgment. First, the security footage. Appellants argue a jury could conclude 

from the video that Mrs. Romano tripped over a dangerously positioned 

electrical cord. But the video shows that Mrs. Romano tripped over the 

corner of the display itself. Moreover, there are no electrical cords or wires 

visible in the video before Mrs. Romano’s fall. And in the moments before 

the accident, the video shows several people passing by the left, front corner 

of the vehicle display—the very same corner where Mrs. Romano fell—and 

none of those other individuals stumble or step over any cords.

Second, appellants criticize the district court for ignoring other 

evidence regarding the cord’s position. Specifically, appellants point to a 

photograph taken by Mr. Romano after the accident, which shows the cord 

lying outside the perimeter of the vehicle display, and testimony by Harrah’s 

Case: 21-30554 Document: 00516263895 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
No. 21-30554

4

employees about that photograph. But all of this evidence is relevant only to

the cord’s position after the incident. None of appellants’ evidence supports 

their assertion that the cord created a hazard before Mrs. Romano’s fall. And 

“the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, 

after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails 

to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential 

to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at 

trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

We agree with the district court that appellants have not carried their 

summary-judgment burden. Appellants’ version of the facts is contradicted 

by the video. And they presented no other evidence sufficient to create a 

genuine issue of material fact regarding the cord’s position before the 

accident. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing 

parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the 

record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt 

that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary 

judgment.”). Appellees were therefore entitled to summary judgment. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 21-30554 Document: 00516263895 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/01/2022