Opinion ID: 1831360
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: both the city and socorro were negligent

Text: For the reasons which follow, we agree with the court of appeal's determination that the negligence of both the City of New Orleans and the plaintiff himself contributed to plaintiff's resulting injury. [8] The court of appeal found the City responsible under a negligence theory because the City took no measures to either remedy or warn of an unreasonably dangerous risk which the City knew or should have known of. The court of appeal found that the unreasonably dangerous risk was created by the following facts and circumstances: the shallow murky waters off the Point, the presence of large chunks of rip rap lying on the lake bottom, the inviting and alluring nature of the bulkhead which created an illusion of safety, the regular use of the water off the Point (a dedicated recreation area) by the public for swimming and other water sports, and the clear absence of any warning or prohibitory signs or barriers as were present along other areas of the lakefront.... Socorro, 561 So.2d at 753. The City argues that it is free from fault under the authority of a line of Louisiana appellate court cases which have held that a landowner has no duty to warn of the obvious danger of diving into unknown waters. The City cites Stuart v. City of Morgan City, 504 So.2d 934 (1st Cir.1987); Van Pelt v. Morgan City Power Boat Assoc., Inc., 489 So.2d 1346 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ granted, 493 So.2d 627 (La.1986) (dismissed because of compromise); Sonnier v. Dupin, 416 So.2d 1371 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1982); Caillouette v. Cherokee Beach & Campgrounds, Inc., 386 So.2d 666 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 387 So.2d 597 (La.1980); Hall v. Lemieux, 378 So.2d 130 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979). The City contends that the court of appeal's decision in this case creates a conflict among the circuits which we must resolve by addressing the issue of whether a landowner has a duty to warn of the obvious danger of diving into unknown waters. In addressing this issue, we first note that under traditional duty/risk analysis, we are to view the defendant and the accident victim as individual and unique social actors, rather than representatives of groups of social actors. See H. Steiner, Moral Argument and Social Vision in the Courts: A Study of Tort Accident Law 115 (1987). The issue as put to us by the City is stated in such broad terms that our considering either a yes or no answer would shift the focus of this case from the proper inquiry of whether the City is responsible to Franz Socorro under the facts of this case, to the improper question of whether all riparian landowners are responsible to all plaintiffs injured in diving accidents under all circumstances. Rather, the particular facts and circumstances of each individual case determines the extent of the duty and the resulting degree of care necessary to fulfill the duty. Kent v. Gulf States Utilities, 418 So.2d 493, 497 (La. 1982). Duty-risk analysis guides our efforts in making this determination. Such analysis requires the court to take into account the conduct of each individual party and the peculiar circumstances of the case. In Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1122 (La. 1987), we set forth the following questions to aid us in determining the responsibilities of the parties: (1) Was the conduct in question a cause-in-fact of the resulting harm? (2) What, if any, duties were owed by the respective parties? (3) Were the requisite duties breached? (4) Was the risk, and harm caused, within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached? See also Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hospital, 556 So.2d 559 (La.1990); Molbert v. Toepfer, 550 So.2d 183 (La.1989); Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 334 So.2d 406 (La.1976); Hill v. Lundin and Assoc., Inc., 260 La. 542, 256 So.2d 620 (1972); Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Company, 257 La. 471, 242 So.2d 821 (1970); W. Crowe, The Anatomy of a Tort, 22 Loy.L. Rev. 903 (1976). Under the first inquiry, we have stated that [n]egligent conduct is a cause-in-fact of harm to another if it was a substantial factor in bringing about that harm. Dixie Drive It Yourself Sys. v. American Beverage Co., 242 La. 471, 482, 137 So.2d 298, 302 (1962). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the conduct of both the City and the plaintiff were substantial factors in bringing about plaintiff's injury. The City's conduct was a substantial factor because it created an unreasonable risk of harm. The plaintiff's conduct of failing to ascertain the safety of his dive by checking the depth and underwater conditions was also a substantial factor in bringing about his own injuries. Under the second inquiry, we must assess the duties owed by both the City and the plaintiff. Turning first to the plaintiff's conduct, we recognize that our courts have uniformly held that it is the primary duty of the swimmer or diver to ascertain the safety of such inherently dangerous activities. See, e.g., Socorro, 561 So.2d at 760; Stuart v. Morgan City, 504 So.2d at 938; Jolivette v. City of Lafayette, 408 So.2d 309 (La.App. 3d Cir.1981), writ denied, 413 So.2d 495 (La.1982). We have explained that the ease of association between the duty owed and the risk encountered is a proper focus of inquiry in finding the existence of a duty. Lejeune, 556 So.2d at 568-69; Dunne v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 463 So.2d 1267 (La.1985); Hill v. Lundin and Assoc., Inc., supra. The risk of sustaining a neck injury while diving head first into untested waters is easily associated with Socorro's duty to ascertain the safety of his dive. Socorro was in a better position than anyone to determine the safety of his activities, thus justifying the primary duty placed upon him. By failing to determine the depth of the water (which the record showed to be approximately 4 feet) and failing to investigate the bottom conditions which would have revealed the presence of rip rap, Socorro breached his duty to assure the safety of the waters into which he dove. We conclude that Socorro was negligent because he knew or should have known of the risks he encountered and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent his injury. Turning to the City's duty, we have consistently held that a landowner owes a plaintiff a duty to discover any unreasonably dangerous conditions and to either correct the condition or warn of its existence. See, e.g., Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 334 So.2d 406, 410 (La.1976) (citations omitted). The record supports the lower courts' findings that the sudden absence of warning signs at the Point combined with the alluring bulkhead and the submerged rip rap, created an unreasonably dangerous condition. The City was thus under a duty to warn of its existence, and the district court and court of appeal were not clearly wrong in so holding. Whether a particular risk is unreasonable is a difficult question which requires a balance of the intended benefit of the thing with its potential for harm and the cost of prevention. Landry v. State, 495 So.2d 1284, 1288 (La.1986); Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So.2d 1146 (La.1983). The court of appeal properly found social utility in the frequent recreational use of the breakwater, the Point and its surrounding waters. 561 So.2d at 752. The rip rap covering the lake bottom surrounding the Point is also beneficial in that it serves the necessary function of preventing erosion caused by the wave action of Lake Pontchartrain. The court of appeal properly concluded that the breakwater and the Point in the City's custody posed an unreasonable risk of harm because the minimal cost of preventing the possibility of harm outweighed its intended benefits: Gabrielsen [plaintiff's expert in aquatic recreational areas] stated that the height and configuration of the bulkhead served as an invitation to use it for a platform and dive off. Because there were no rails, barriers or prohibitory signs to deter such activity, he opined that the bulkhead created an illusion of safety.... This illusion of safety was further emphasized by the fact that there were numerous signs posted along other sections of the lakefront prohibiting swimming and diving with a complete absence of such signs at the Point. Under the circumstances, one could reasonably conclude that these activities were not only permitted at the Point, but were safe. Gabrielson concluded that under these facts, this type of accident could have been prevented through the use of very simple and inexpensive measures such as warning or prohibitory signs on the bulkhead or in the water close to the bulkhead or a rope railing or other type barrier to prevent diving from atop the bulkhead. He estimated the expense for minimal prevention (signs or a rope railing) to be approximately ten dollars. 561 So.2d at 751-52 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). The City was therefore under a duty to warn this plaintiff of the unreasonable risk of harm created by the circumstances of this case (the sudden absence of warning signs, the inviting nature of the bulkhead as a diving platform, the deep appearance of the water concealing the rip rap). Furthermore, the risk of a diving injury under these conditions is well within the scope of the City's duty because the evidence establishes that the City could have reasonably anticipated that one of the many people who use its recreational facility could perceive the bulkhead as an attractive diving platform, and that this type of harm could arise in this manner. See Hill v. Lundin, 256 So.2d 620, 623 (La.1972) (a risk is within the scope of a defendant's duty if the defendant could have reasonably anticipated harm arising in a particular manner). We conclude that this duty was breached based on the City's failure to take the minimal and inexpensive preventive measure of posting a warning or prohibitory sign. This neglect was unreasonable considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm. [9] Levi v. S.W. La. Elec. Membership Co-op, 542 So.2d 1081 (La.1989). We note that the lack of warning signs alone in an area adjacent to natural waters does not in and of itself create an unreasonably dangerous condition. Because the owner cannot be held responsible for all injuries resulting from any risk, the court's duty is to decide which risks are unreasonable. This inquiry requires a weighing of the moral, social, and economic values and the ideal of justice within the framework of the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Landry, 495 So.2d at 1287; Entrevia, 427 So.2d at 1149. The lower courts were correct in finding that the lack of warning signs at the Point created an unreasonably dangerous condition based on a particular distinguishing factor from most areas adjacent to natural bodies of water; the lack of warning signs at the Point was in sharp contrast to the many no swimming, no diving signs found elsewhere along the nearby lakefront area. Although the Levee Board posted these signs, the court of appeal was not incorrect in rejecting plaintiff's argument that the Levee Board had a duty to place warning signs in an area where it had no jurisdiction. Rather, the City, the governmental entity with exclusive jurisdiction, administration and control over Breakwater Drive and the Point, created the unreasonably hazardous illusion that swimming and diving were permitted because of the sudden absence of prohibitory signs combined with the character of the Point and its bulkhead. The record supports the determination that the City was negligent because it knew or should have known of this unreasonable risk of harm, and took no measures to warn persons like the plaintiff. The City argues that the Fourth Circuit's decision in this case conflicts with its prior decision which held that there is no duty to warn persons of the full age of majority of the obvious dangers inherent in natural bodies of water. Hall v. Lemieux, 378 So.2d 130 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979), writ denied, 381 So.2d 1220 (La.1980). Reasoning that the danger was not obvious because the rip rap under the murky waters of Lake Pontchartrain presented a concealed or hidden danger in the area where plaintiff dove, the court of appeal properly rejected the City's no duty argument. Socorro, 561 So.2d at 759-60. In Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc. 521 So.2d 1123 (La.1988), under similar facts, we expressly disapproved the same no duty argument that the City is making in the present case. In Murray, plaintiff was injured by diving into a motel swimming pool. We held that the old doctrine of assumption of risk, formerly a bar to recovery in such cases, has been subsumed into the comparative fault system such that Murray's taking the risk of diving into the shallow pool could no longer bar his recovery but should rather reduce it on a percentage-fault basis. Having failed to prevail on its assumed risk argument, the Murray defendant then fell back upon exactly the same no-duty argument that the City now asserts. We explained that a defendant's duty is not to be defined in terms of the plaintiff's actual knowledge or conduct. We stated: ... Defendants suggest that, leaving aside the doctrine of assumption of risk, they should not be liable because they had no duty to protect the decedent from a danger of which he had knowledge. In essence, defendants contend here that they were not negligent because the plaintiff voluntarily encountered the risk. The Fifth Circuit wisely rejected this contention. 821 F.2d at 276. If accepted, defendants' argument would inject the assumption of risk doctrine into duty/risk analysis `through the back door.' By that, we mean that the argument attempts to define the defendant's initial duty in terms of the plaintiff's actual knowledge, and thereby seeks to achieve the same result which would be reached if assumption of risk were retained as a defense, i.e., a total bar to the plaintiff's recovery. Murray, 521 So.2d at 1135-36 (emphasis in original). Therefore, Murray requires a review of the City's duty separate and apart from any knowledge the plaintiff had or should have had of the danger he was encountering. The group of appellate court cases cited by the City for the proposition that it had no duty to warn of the obvious danger of diving into unknown waters, all barred recovery by a partially negligent plaintiff under the label contributory negligence, assumption of risk, or no duty owed by defendant. These opinions focused on the knowledge and conduct of the plaintiff in concluding that no duty was owed by the defendant. This method of analysis has now been rejected by Murray, which explains that the plaintiff's knowledge and conduct is considered only to determine the extent of his comparative negligence. Murray, 521 So.2d at 1133. The City argues that Murray recognized the continued validity of their no duty argument by upholding Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra , a case which explained that a landowner is not liable for an injury resulting from a condition which should have been observed by an individual in the exercise of reasonable care or which was as obvious to a visitor as to the landowner. Shelton, 334 So.2d at 410. Although we reject the City's no duty argument under these facts, care should be taken to note that we maintain our policy that the duty which a landowner owes to persons entering his property is governed by a standard of reasonableness, and that a potentially dangerous condition that should be obvious to all comers is not, in all instances, unreasonably dangerous. Murray, 521 So.2d at 1136 (citing Shelton, 334 So.2d at 410). Therefore, under duty/risk analysis, if the facts of a particular case warrant, there could be a finding that a defendant owed no duty under the circumstances, or on the other hand, that a plaintiff was 100% at fault. Murray, 521 So.2d at 1137 (Cole, J., concurring). Having found, however, that under the facts of this case both parties were negligent, we turn to the issue of apportionment of fault.