Court Opinion

ID: 9927659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 18:06:51.761195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:57.203028
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                   COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LETETRA WILSON                                                                                            NO.        2023 CW         1019

VERSUS                                                                                                                PAGE       1 OF 2

DOLLAR TREE              STORES,          INC.

                                                                                                   JANUARY              29,          2024

In Re:              Dollar           Tree           Stores,                 Inc.,       applying                for     supervisory
                    writs,           19th          Judicial                 District             Court,          Parish          of       East
                    Baton Rouge,                   No.       711007.

BEFORE:             McCLENDON,             HESTER,                   AND MILLER,             JJ.

          WRIT          GRANTED.               We        find              the     trial           court             erred        in       its
September               1,      2023          judgment                    denying           the       motion           for        summary
judgment           filed by defendant,                                Dollar Tree            Stores,             Inc.           Under La.
R.S.       9:2800.6,                plaintiff,                   Letetra           Wilson,             had       the        burden          of
proving            the        condition             presented                 an       unreasonable                   risk       of       harm
that was           reasonably              foreseeable,                      the       defendant            either created or
had       actual         or     constructive                         knowledge          of        the      alleged              dangerous
condition,               and        the        defendant                    failed           to       exercise              reasonable
care.          Latour v.            Steamboats,                      LLC,     2023-00027 (                 La.       10/20/23),            371
So. 3d        1026,          1035-36.               The          question              of    whether             a     condition            is
open       and          obvious          is        embraced                 within          the       breach           of       the       duty
element            of    the     duty/risk                analysis                and       is    not       a    jurisprudential
doctrine           barring recovery,                             but      only a        factor            of the       risk/utility
balancing               test.       Farrell              v.           Circle       K        Stores,            Inc.,        2022-00849
    La.       3/17/23),             359        So.3d                 467,     478.           Specifically,                      it     falls
within          the          ambit        of        the              second       factor           of       the        risk/utility
balancing               test,       which          considers                the     likelihood                  and    magnitude            of
the       harm,          and    it        is       not           a    consideration                   for       determining                the
legal         question          of       the       existence                 of    a    duty.             Id.         The       magnitude
of    harm         factor           asks       whether                 the       condition             presents             a    risk       of
great         or    small       injury and the                         likelihood of each,                           which       includes
a    consideration                  of    the           open          and    obviousness                  of     the    condition.
Rainey v.           Knight,           2023-0133 ( La.                        App.       1st Cir.            11/3/23),                  So.3d
          2023      WL    7270745, *               4.    For          a     hazard to            be    considered                open      and
obvious,           it must           be    one          that          is    open       and       obvious          to    all       who     may
encounter               it;    if    so,       that          reasonable                person would                   avoid       it,      and
the       factor          will       weigh              in       favor        of       finding             the       condition             not
unreasonably dangerous.                                 Id.            Additionally,                  the       lack of          reported
complaints               regarding             a    complained-of                       condition               indicates             a    low
risk       of      harm.            Id.        Considering                    the       plaintiff's                   own       testimony
and       the      apparent          lack          of    prior              complaints            or      incidents,             we       find
that      a     reasonable person would have                                       found the               condition ( a               stack
of    bottled water                  cases)             open          and     obvious            and would             have       avoided
it.        The      stack        of       bottled                water        cases         was       apparent          to       all       who
encountered               it;       further,                 a       pedestrian             has       a     duty       to       see       what
should             be        seen        and        is               bound        to        observe             his         course          to
                            STATE OF LOUISIANA

              COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                                                 No.        2023    CW   1019

                                                                                             PAGE    2   OF   2

see     if    his    pathway       is     clear.          Id.        Accordingly,            this    factor
weighs       in favor      of   finding       the    complained-of              condition to not              be
unreasonably dangerous,                  and we      find    the      likelihood and magnitude
of the harm to be minimal.                     Id.       While no         evidence was         presented
as    to     costs    of    prevention,            the     display        of     the    stacked          water
bottles       had    utility       in    order      that    customers           could       readily       find
the   items     and   presented          a    minimal      risk      of    harm.       In    conclusion,
we    find     that     the      burden        shifted          to    the       plaintiff,          Letetra
Wilson,       and    she    has     failed         to    produce       evidence         sufficient            to
establish       the   existence          of    a    genuine      issue      of     material         fact      on
an    essential       element       of       her   claim.        Therefore,            we    reverse       the
trial      court's    September          1,    2 02 3    judgment,         grant       the    motion       for
summary       judgment      filed       by    defendant,         and      dismiss       the    claims         of
the     plaintiff,         Letetra       Wilson,          against         the    defendant,          Dollar
Tree Stores,         Inc.

                                                    PMc
                                                    CHH
                                                    SMM

COURT      OF APPEAL,       FIRST CIRCUIT

      DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
             FOR THE       COURT