Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limite d circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. The United State s was substitute d as the defen dantonOctob er 3 1, 2 008 , pur suant 1 to2 8U .S .C
. § 2 6 7 9 (b)( 1 ). 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30376 Su m m ar y Cal endar
M A X IM E E . G O U R G E O T , J R .; S Y L V IAL . G O U R G E O T , P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v. U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V

- 1621
B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * M axim e G ou rgeotsl i pp ed an d fel lon the st eps of t h e U n i t ed S t ates P ost O ffic e in B o g a lu s a , L o u is ia n a , su s ta in in ginju r ie s . A fte re x h a u s tin gth e ir
av ail ab l e a dm i ni s t r at ive c l ai m s , M r . G o ur ge o ta nd h i s w i fe, Sy lvi a, s ue d t he U ni t ed St at es Post alS erv i ce under t he Feder alTor tC l ai m s A c t( FT C A) , 28 1 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 31, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30376 Document: 00511067671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 09- 30376

2 U
. S. C
. §§ 1346(b) ( 1) & 2671 e ts e q. Foll ow i n g a ben ch tr i al , t h e di st ri ctcourt f o und t hatt he s t e ps di d no tc o ns t i t ut e a n unr e as o nab l y da nge r o us c o ndi t i o n a nd
e nt e r e d j udg m e ntf

o rt he G o ve r nm e nt . The G o ur ge o t s a ppe al , c hall e ngi ng t he d is tr ic t c o u r t’s fin d in gth a t t h e s te p s d idn o t c o n s tit u te a n u n r e a s o n a b ly d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n . We a f f i r m.

“ I n r e vi e w i ng a be nc h t r i al , w e re vi e w f i ndi ngs o f

fac tf o rc l e are r r o ra nd
con cl u sion s of l a w de n ov o.” V i l lafran ca v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 8 7 F
. 3 d25 7 , 26 0 ( 5 th C i r . 2009)
. “W e w i l lf i nd cl earer r ori f

( 1) t he f

i ndi ngs a re w i t houts ubst ant i al evi den ce to sup port t h em ; (2) the court m i si n t erpret ed t h e ef fectof t h e evi den ce; o r( 3) a l t ho ught he r e i s e vi de nc e w hi c h, i f c r e dibl e , w o ul d b e s ubs t an t i al , t he f or c e and ef

fec t of t he t es t i m ony, c ons i der ed as a w hol e, c onvi nce s t he c our tt hat th e fi n d i n gs are ag a i n st t h e p rep on d era n ce of cred ib l e testi m on y.” A re te Par t ne rs , L. P. v . G unne r m an , 594 F. 3d 390, 394 ( 5t h C i r . 2010) (c i t i ng B d
. of Trs. Ne w O r le ansEmploy e rs I nt ’lLo ngs ho r e m e n’

s As s ’ n v . G ab r i e l, Roe de r, Sm i t h & Co. , 5 2 9 F .3d 5 0 6 , 5 0 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 )).

“ Li ab i l i t y unde rt he FTC A i s de t e r m i ne d ‘i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h t he l aw of t he p l a ce w h ere the act or om i ssion occu rred
. ’” V i l lafran ca , 5 87 F
. 3dat2 60 ( quo t i ng 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1346 (b) )
. Lou i si an a l aw provi des: Th e o w nerorc ust odi an of a t hi ng i s answ er abl e f ordam age o c c as i o ne d b y i t s r ui n, vi c e , ordef e c t , only upo n a sho w i ng t hathe kn ew or, i n t h e exerci se of reasonab l e care, shou l d h ave k n ow n of t he r ui n, vi c e, or def

ec tw hi c h ca use d t he dam age, t hatt he dam age c o ul d ha ve b e e n pr e ve nt e d b y t he e xe r c i s e o f reasonab l e c ar e , a nd t h at he fai l ed to exerci se s u ch reasona bl e care. L A . C IV . C ODE A NN . art . 231 7. 1 (W est199 7)
. Th e el em en t s of t h i s provi si on are: (1 ) c u st odyor control ; ( 2) an un reasona bl y da n gerous cond i t i on ; ( 3) act u alor c o n s tr u c tiv e k n o w le d g e ; a n d( 4 ) d a m a g e s c a u s e db yth e co n d itio n . Jeans onne v. S
. Cent. B el lT

el
. Co. , 8 So. 3d 61 3, 619 (L a. C t . A pp . 200 9)
. H ere, t h e parti es di sput e w het herthe st eps w er e a n un r eas onabl y danger ous c ondi t i on— nam ely, Case: 09-30376 Document: 00511067671 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 09- 30376

3 w he t he rt he y w e r e “ o f s uc h ana t ur e a s t o c o ns t i t ut e a da nge r o us c o ndi t i o n, w hi c h woul d r e as o nab l y be e xp e c t e d t o c aus e i nj ur y t o apr ude ntpe r s o n us i ng ord i n a rycare u n d er th e circu m stan ces.” Mon son v. TravelersProp. & Cas. I n s. Co. , 955 So. 2d 758 , 761 (La. C t . A pp. 2007) (c i t i ng Am e s tv . Ci tyof Br e aux B r i dge , 801 So. 2 d 5 8 2 , 5 85 (La
. C t . A pp . 200 1) )
. D et erm i n i n g w h et h er a cond i t i on i s un reasona bl y da n gerous requ i res consi derati on of f ou r fact ors: ( 1) t he ut i l i t y o f t he c o m pl ai ne d- o f c o ndi t i o n; ( 2) t he l i ke l i ho o d a nd m ag ni t ude o f

ha r m , w hi c h i nc l ude s t he o bv i o us ne s s a nd a p p a r e n t n e s s o f t h e c o n d i t i o n ; ( 3 ) t h e c o s t o f p r e v e n t i n gt h e h a r m; and ( 4) t he nat ure of t he pl ai nt i f

f ’ s ac t ivi t i es i n t erm s of i t s so c i al u t i l i t y or w h et h er iti s dan gerous byna t u re. Hut c hi ns o n v . Knight s of Col um bus , 8 6 6 S o . 2 d2 2 8 , 2 3 5 (L a . 2 0 0 4 ). N e i t he rpa r t y di s put e s t hatt he s t e ps — w hi ch are m ad e o f g r ad e gr ani t e— pro vi de t h e on l y publ i c i ngre ss t o t he B ogal usa Pos tO f f i c e a nd t hat t h ere are t h ree s et s of ha n drai l s t h at ca n be gri pp ed f or s u pp ort . Postm aster C arlL eB ou ef, w h o ha d be e n at t h e B ogalusa P ostO f f i ce s i n ce 2000 , t est i f i ed th a t h e h a dn o t h e a r do f a n ya c c id e n ts o n t h e s te p s p r io rt o M r . G o u r g e o t’s fa ll i n M ay 200 5, d espi t e esti m ati n g t h at the st eps are usedm ore t h an 125 , 000 t i m es per year. M r. G ou rgeota ckn ow l edg ed t h at he ha d u sed t h e st eps severalt i m es per w eek si n ce 1990 w i t h ou tfal l i n g pri or t o M ay 20 05 . T h e cust odi an , R obert Pi er c e, t es t i f

i ed t hathe v i sua l l y i nspec t ed t he s t eps ea c h m or ni ng and he had p a in te dth e s te p s in J a n u a r y2 0 0 4 u s in gd e c k p a in t m ix e dw ith an o n -s k id ad di t ive t o pr o vi de g r e at e rt r ac t i o n. I n l i ghtof

t he evi denc e bef

or e t he di st r i c t c our t , w e c annotc onc l ude t hat t h e di st ri ctcourt c o m m itt ed cl ear err or i n f i n di n g t h at t h e st eps w ere not unr e as o nab l y da nge r o us . N o ri s t hi s co nc l us i o n a f fe c t e d b y t he t e s t i m o ny o f t he G ou rgeot s’expert w i t n ess, w h o te st ed the sl i pp eri n ess of t h e st eps i n M arch 200 8. A s t h e d i st ri ctcou rtn ot ed, the cond i t i on s at the t i m e of t est i n g w ere not s ubs t ant i al l y s i m il art o t ho s e a t t he t i m e o f M r . G o ur ge o t ’ s fal l
. M o r e o ve r , t he Case: 09-30376 Document: 00511067671 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 09- 30376

4 st an da rds reli ed u pon b y t h e ex pert contem pl ated l aboratory t est i n g of pol i shed surfaces usi n g speci al i zed equ i pm en t , n o tf i el d tes t i n g of

un pol i shed surfaces w i t ho utt hate qui pm e nt . U nde rt he s e c i r c um s t anc e s , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , s i t t i ng a s th e t r ie r o f fa c t , w a s e n t it le d t o d is c o u n t t h e p r o b a t iv e w e ig h to f t h e e x p e r t ’s t estres u l t s and concl u si on s. W e f i nd no c l earer r or i n t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of fac t . Acc or di ngl y, t h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-30376 Document: 00511067671 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/31/2010