Lawsuit "Tripped Up" by Open and Obvious Defense

A federal court for the Middle District of Louisiana recently ruled that a 1½ inch elevation change in a Walmart parking lot did not present an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff patron in Lacaze v. Walmart Stores, Inc. The case involved a slip and fall/trip and fall accident in the parking lot of Walmart’s Burbank Drive store in Baton Rouge. The defendant moved to dismiss the suit where the plaintiff claimed she tripped and fell as she crossed the area where the black asphalt parking lot adjoined the concrete crosswalk as pictured below.

In the area where the asphalt meets the crosswalk, the surface presented a ¼ inch to 1½ inch change in elevation. Plaintiff admitted the black pavement was distinct in appearance and color from the concrete crosswalk. Surveillance showed that plaintiff looked down at her cell phone at the time she tripped and fell. Though in a high pedestrian traffic area, Wal-Mart maintained this was the first reported incident.

The Court found the condition was open and obvious and did not present an unreasonable risk of harm. To reach this decision, the Court made the following observations:

1. Parking lots have clear and apparent utility. Crosswalks do as well. Crosswalks give patrons a designated area to traverse the lot safely.
2. The likelihood and magnitude of the risk posed by the condition was low. The Court noted it is common for surfaces of parking lots and sidewalks to be irregular, and no other patrons reported problems or accidents.
3. The cost of preventing the harm was high. The Court would not consider only the cost of fixing the specific injury-causing defect. Rather, it considered the cost of eliminating all defects in the Walmart parking lot.
4. Plaintiff conducted an ordinary commercial activity that was not dangerous in nature.

The Court concluded that all but factor four pointed to a single conclusion: the 1½ inch elevation difference did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. The Court reached this conclusion even though the plaintiff retained an expert who gave opinions regarding possible violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and OSHA regulations. The expert’s opinions were insufficient to defeat summary judgment when the condition was open and obvious. In reaching its ultimate conclusion, the Court joined with several other courts, including the following:

• Chambers v. Vill. of Moreauville, where a one-and-one half inch deviation did not present an unreasonable risk of harm;
• Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, where a height variance of one-fourth to one-half inch between concrete blocks in parking lot did not present an unreasonable risk of harm; and
• Boyle v. Board of Sup'rs, Louisiana State University, where a depression of up to one inch in a sidewalk did not pose unreasonable risk of harm.

Case References: Lacaze v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. CV 20-696-JWD-EWD, 2022 WL 4227240 (M.D. La. Sept. 13, 2022); Chambers v. Vill. of Moreauville, 2011-0898 (La. 01/24/12), 85 So.3d 593; Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, 97-1174 (La. 03/04/98), 708 So.2d 362; and Boyle v. Board of Sup'rs, Louisiana State University, 96-1158 (La. 01/14/97), 685 So.2d 1080.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that the enactment of the "Cash Balance Plan" was unconstitutional. See The Retired State Employees, Association et. al v. The State of Louisiana et. al., 2013-0499, - So.3d -. The Cash Balance Plan is a 401-k style retirement plan that was to be put in place for state employees, including teachers, hired after July 1, 2014.

The key issues in The Retired State Employees litigation were: 1) whether the Cash Balance Plan was a new retirement plan or merely a modification of an existing retirement plan; and 2) whether the Cash Balance Plan had an "actuarial cost." If the Cash Balance Plan was a new plan or had an actuarial cost, a two-thirds vote would be required to pass the legislation rather than a mere majority of votes under Louisiana Constitution Article X, § 29(F).

The Speaker of Louisiana House of Representatives determined that a mere majority was required to pass the bill (HB 61 (Act 483)) containing the Cash Balance Plan. The bill passed by a majority, but with less than a two-thirds vote and was signed into law on June 5, 2012.

The 19th JDC determined that the Cash Balance Plan required a two-thirds vote to be enacted and was therefore unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted writs.

The Retired State Employees Court determined that the Cash Balance Plan, even if it was a new plan, was a part of the old retirement system and therefore was subject to Constitutional Article X, § 29(F). Article X, § 29(F) requires a two-thirds vote when there is an actuarial cost related to the bill being enacted.　

The Court reasoned that whether there is an actuarial cost to a bill is a determination to be made by the legislative auditor. While multiple fiscal advisors expressed the opinion that there was no actuarial cost, the legislative auditor determined that the Cash Balance Plan did, in fact, have an actuarial cost. Therefore, a two-thirds vote was required to pass the Cash Balance Plan and its enactment was unconstitutional.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled 6-1 that the funding method for the private school tuition voucher program approved by the Legislature last year is unconstitutional under La. Const. art. VIII, Sect. 13(B). The decision leaves uncertain the status of the approximately 8,000 students who had been approved for vouchers for the 2013-2014 school year.In Louisiana Federation of Teachers et al. (No. 2013-CA-0120), the Court held that once funds are dedicated to the state's Minimum Foundation Program for public education, the Constitution prohibits the use of those funds for the tuition costs of nonpublic schools and nonpublic entities. The Court reasoned that it could not sanction the voucher program's funding method when the source of those funds specifically mandated that they be spent on public education. The Court rejected the argument that the voucher program violated the constitutional requirement that a legislative bill have only "one object."The voucher program was part of a 2012 school reform program that allowed the State to offer vouchers to a large number of Louisiana students and to expand the number of privately managed charter schools.The Jindal administration has pledged to continue the program. In response to the ruling, Jindal stated, "We're disappointed the funding mechanism was rejected, but we are committed to making sure this program continues and we will fund it through the budget."The passing of the voucher program legislation was a high-profile affair prominently covered by local and even national media. In this context, the Court felt it advisable to confirm the Supreme Court's role in approving or rejecting legislation. The first page of the opinion includes the following quote:

The determination of how to best provide for the education of children is not the role of the court in this matter. We defer that determination to those more learned in the fields of education and public policy. The court's role is to evaluate the law set forth in the constitution to determine whether the matters addressed by the legislature comply with the relevant constitutional provisions and "not to legislate social policy on the basis of our own personal inclinations." State v. Smith, 99-0606, 99-2094, 99-2015, 99-2019, p. 11 (La. 7/6/00), 766 So. 2d 501, 510. [Emphasis added]

One might reasonably expect that this will not be the last time the Louisiana Supreme Court will be asked to consider the voucher program.