Case Name: M. PETTIS and B. Pettis v. HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK and the City of New Orleans
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1994-12-15
Citations: 648 So. 2d 27
Docket Number: No. 94-CA-1111
Parties: M. PETTIS and B. Pettis v. HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK and the City of New Orleans.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, C.J., BARRY and BYRNES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 648
Pages: 27–29

Head Matter:
M. PETTIS and B. Pettis v. HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK and the City of New Orleans.
No. 94-CA-1111.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1994.
Writ Denied March 10, 1995.
Harold S. Bartholomew, Jr., Bartholomew Law Offices, Metairie, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Philip 0. Bergeron, Ralph H. Wall, Adams and Reese, New Orleans, for defendant-ap-pellee.
Neil J. Kohlman, Victor M. Ortiz, Asst. City Attys., Bruce E. Naccari, Acting First Asst. City Atty ./Chief of Research and Opinions, Avis Marie Russell, City Atty., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before SCHOTT, C.J., BARRY and BYRNES, JJ.

Opinion:
JiSCHOTT, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff shpped and fell on a ramp joining the sidewalk and street on the corner of Canal and David Streets in New Orleans. On a motion for summary judgment the trial court dismissed his suit against Hibernia National Bank, the owner of the property adjacent to the sidewalk along Canal Street. Plaintiff has appealed claiming factual dispute which would preclude summary judgment and error of law for absolving Hibernia of responsibihty for defects in the ramp. We affirm.
There are no disputed issues of material fact. Hibernia owns the property on Canal Street between Carrollton Avenue and David Street where it operates a branch office. When the plaintiff's accident happened on June 2, 1989, he was on his way to the bank to conduct business. When he stepped from the street onto the ramp at the corner of Canal and David Streets his shoe slipped on the surface of the ramp which, for purposes of this appeal only, we assume to have been slippery. The surface of the ramp like the sidewalk was made of |2exposed aggregate.
In 1979 Hibernia contracted with Roy J. Gross to make interior and exterior modifications and repairs on its property. Included in the work was the construction of a new sidewalk in front of the bank between Car-rollton and David. After the sidewalk and new curbing were completed at Canal and Carrollton, but before the work was done on the other comer at David Street employees of the City of New Orleans cut up the pavement on the Carrollton Avenue corner and installed a ramp. An official of the City Streets Department informed Gross that they would do the same thing on the David Street corner if he did not construct the ramp himself.
The contract between Gross and Hibernia did not include the construction of ramps at the corners. Gross took it upon himself to build the ramp rather than to build a sidewalk which the City would tear up to install a ramp. Neither Hibernia nor its architect designed the ramp, Gross did. Hibernia did not pay anything extra to Gross for building the ramp.
In order to prevail plaintiff must show that Hibernia is either strictly liable undei; C.C. art. 2317 or liable because of negligence under art. 2315. The above facts do not support liability under either theory. A property owner is not liable under art. 2317 because a public sidewalk is not within the property owner's custody or garde. Carpenter v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 411 So.2d 1206 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982). The sidewalk and ramp in question were not for Hibernia's exclusive use. They were for the use of any pedestrian choosing to pass there. The ramp was in the public domain.
As to negligence Hibernia had nothing to do with Gross's decision to build the ramp or how to build it. Even if Gross could be somehow considered a contractor with respect to Hibernia in the construction of this ramp, Hibernia would not be liable because it exercised no control whatsoever on how GrossJjbuilt this ramp. Williams v. Gervais F. Favrot Co., 499 So.2d 623, 625 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986), writ denied 503 So.2d 19.
Plaintiff also contends that Hibernia violated its duty to provide a safe place for him as a customer, a business invitee, to approach its facility. The duty imposed on a business to provide a safe place for its customers applies to the premises, but not to adjacent property unless the business created the hazard which causes the injury. George v. Western Auto Supply Co., Inc., 527 So.2d 428, 430 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988). Plaintiffs accident occurred on City property and is alleged to have been caused by a hazardous condition Hibernia did not create.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
BARRY, J., concurs.