Less Than Obvious State of “Open and Obvious” Defense

The “open and obvious” defense remains alive and well in Louisiana according to an article penned recently by Professor John M. Church of the LSU Law Center for the Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel. In April 2013, the Louisiana Supreme Court announced Broussard v. State of Louisiana, 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13), 113 So.3d 175, which muddied the waters regarding use of the “open and obvious” defense. Some read Broussard as a pronouncement that the “open and obvious” defense was essentially dead in Louisiana. However, as reflected in Professor Church’s article, subsequent Louisiana Supreme Court decisions have given new life to the defense.

The defense is based upon the premise that an “open and obvious” defect is non-hazardous, because a reasonably-attentive plaintiff could or should have avoided the harm in the exercise of due care. Before Broussard, courts routinely ruled that a defendant owed no duty to a plaintiff when the alleged defect was “open and obvious.” Following Broussard, courts began to shift the analysis from a question of duty (an issue of law) to a factor that should be considered when analyzing a potential breach of that duty (an issue of fact). As such, some courts concluded that the defense was not properly addressed at the summary judgment stage.

In October 2014, the Supreme Court appeared to alter course when it affirmed a summary judgment granted on grounds that the alleged defect presented an open and obvious condition. See Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, LLC, 2014-0288 (La. 10/15/14), — So.3d — 2014 WL 5394087. In reaching this decision, the Bufkin Court focused on the duty element of plaintiff’s case, which seemingly contradicted prior interpretations of Broussard. Thereafter, the Court went even further, affirmatively stating that “[a]ny reading of Broussard interpreting it as a limit on summary judgment practice involving issues of unreasonable risk of harm is a misinterpretation of the Broussard case.” Allen v. Lockwood, 2014-1724 (La. 2/13/15), 156 So.3d 650.

According to Professor Church, Bufkin and Allen reflect a shift back to an analysis of the open and obvious defense on the duty level and remove any doubt regarding whether summary judgment is appropriate in this setting. Professor Church anticipates that the Supreme Court will continue to clarify this doctrine in future decisions. For now, Broussard remains an obstacle, albeit shrinking, in the defense of trip and fall claims.

Author: C. Reynolds LeBlanc

Louisiana's long relationship with oil and gas has been profitable for both the oil and gas industry and Louisiana's citizens. However, the nature and extent of the duty to restore the land after drilling has often been a disputed and litigated issue. Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in State v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 2012-0884 (La. 1/30/13), - So.3d - added clarity to the law by establishing that the presence of a Court-approved remediation plan does not create a "cap" on damages.

The Louisiana Legislature passed La. R.S. 30:29 to provide a procedure for the clean-up, or "remediation," of oilfield, exploration and production sites. Before this statute, a plaintiff who was awarded monetary "remediation" damages to restore land was not obligated to actually use the money to perform remediation work. The purpose of La. R.S. 30:29 was to ensure that any money awarded to remediate polluted sites be used for this purpose. By the statute, any such award is to be deposited with the Court and spent under a Court-approved plan.

Even after the statute, it remained unclear whether a Court's approval of a remediation plan created a "damages cap" whereby the plaintiff landowner could not recover in excess of the plan. This issue was resolved in State v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co.

The suit involved the State's action for remediation of land owned by the State and managed by the Vermilion Parish School Board. The property was allegedly polluted by oil and gas exploration performed pursuant to a mineral lease. Consistent with recovery allowed in earlier cases, the State sought to recover damages in excess of the remediation costs. Attorneys for one of the defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment and argued that, under La. R.S. 30:29, the plaintiffs did not have a right to seek damages in excess of the amount necessary to complete the Court's remediation plan

The trial court held the plaintiffs could only recover damages equal to the amount listed in the Court's remediation plan. The appellate court overturned the trial court's decision and held that the landowner could recover damages in excess of the Court's plan, whether those damages are based on a contract or tort law. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision and confirmed that there is no "cap" on damages.

Before and after State v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., an award for damages in excess of the remediation plan is available and arises from a private right in either contract or tort law. Contract damages are permitted if they are expressly provided by the contract. If contract damages are not available, tort damages may be recovered if the plaintiff shows that the defendant acted unreasonably or excessively in its exploration of gas, oil or minerals. See Terrebonne Parish School Bd. v. Castex Energy, Inc., 2004-0968, p. 10 (La. 1/9/05), 893 So.2d 789.

In view of the State v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co. decision, oil and gas companies should be aware that they face exposure in excess of the statutory remediation plan, making them potentially liable for far more than just clean-up.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently issued a ruling on the application of the "open and obvious" doctrine in slip and fall cases. The facts of Broussard v. State of Louisiana, 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13), presented problems for both sides. A UPS driver tripped and fell over an offset between the floor and an elevator. The elevator in a State building had problems for years. One problem was that the elevator would not align properly between floors causing an offset between the floor and the elevator. However, the UPS driver delivered products to this particular State building daily and was well aware of the problem. At the time of the incident, he noticed that the elevator was not properly aligned but nevertheless attempted to pull a dolly with approximately 300 pounds of computer paper over the offset. The inertia created caused the plaintiff to lose control. Plaintiff sued the State, the owner of the building, for injury to his back.

To recover damages from an owner of a building for a slip and fall, a plaintiff must prove: 1) ownership of the building; 2) owner's knowledge of the defect; 3) that damage could have been prevented by reasonable care; 4) that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care; 5) causation of damages; and 6) that the defect in the building created an unreasonable risk of harm. La. C.C. art. 2322; Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So. 2d 1146 (La. 1983). It was the "unreasonable risk of harm" element that was at issue before the Broussard Court.

Louisiana jurisprudence has created a risk-utility balancing test to determine if a defect in a building poses an unreasonable risk of harm. The risk-utility balance test consists of four factors: 1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature. Dauzet v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So. 2d 1184.

In applying this balancing test, the jury found the State 62% liable and Plaintiff 38% liable for Plaintiff's damage. The court of appeal reversed that decision. It found that, where the Plaintiff knew of the defect, the defect was "open and obvious" such that the State had no duty to protect against the condition.

The Louisiana Supreme Court disagreed. Under the specific facts of the case, the Court found that Plaintiff's knowledge of the defect was insufficient to meet the open and obvious test. According to the Court, for a defect to be considered open and obvious it must be open and obvious to all. "Thus, in order to be open and obvious, the risk of harm should be apparent to all who encounter the dangerous condition." Broussard, p. 17.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the open and obvious question is not based upon the plaintiff's particular state of mind. Such an analysis is akin to assumption of the risk - a theory of law that was omitted when Louisiana enacted its comparative fault regime. Instead, the open and obvious to all standard is, according to Broussard, "sensible . . . and does not undermine the comparative fault regime by allowing a plaintiff's negligence to operate as a bar to recovery in a case where the defendant's conduct poses a risk of harm to the hypothetical blameless plaintiff." Id. p. 18.

The true impact of the Broussard decision remains to be seen. Under one reading, the opinion's impact should be limited to its specific facts. Under any interpretation, Broussard preserves the rule that an allegedly defective condition which is obvious to all will bar recovery to the plaintiff.