Allen v. Lockwood - 2014-1724 ( La. 02/13/15), 156 So. 3d 650

Rule:

Broussard should not be construed as precluding summary judgment when no legal duty is owed because the condition encountered is obvious and apparent to all and not unreasonably dangerous. Once a defendant points out a lack of factual support for an essential element in the plaintiff's case, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with evidence to demonstrate that he or she would be able to meet his or her burden at trial. The jurisprudence does not preclude the granting of a motion for summary judgment in cases where the plaintiff is unable to produce factual support for his or her claim that a complained-of condition or things is unreasonably dangerous. Rather, in such a procedural posture, the court's obligation is to decide if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the complained-of condition or thing created an unreasonable risk of harm. 

Facts:

This matter arises from an accident, which took place in the parking area of the Wesley Chapel United Methodist Church. The church sits in a small patch of partially cleared woods in a rural area of St. Helena Parish, off Louisiana Highway 448. Congregants attending services at the church typically pull in among the trees and unpaved grassy areas on the church grounds to park their vehicles. The accident occurred when an elderly church member, Hattie Lockwood, entered her vehicle following services. Ms. Lockwood reversed her car at a high rate of speed, striking Hazel Allen as she was walking. As a result of the accident, Allen filed suit against several defendants, including Wesley Chapel United Methodist Church and its insurer, GuideOne Specialty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "church defendants"). With regard to the church defendants, Allen alleged they were responsible for all or part of the accident based on various defects in the premises, including defective design of the parking area, improper markings in the parking lot, and improper safety barriers and/or improper safety measures. The church defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Allen was unable to establish the accident resulted from any negligence in the design or maintenance of the parking area. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment. The court of appeal denied defendants' application for supervisory writs.

Issue:

Are the defendants entitled to summary judgment when Allen is unable to produce any evidence supporting her contention their parking lot was unreasonably dangerous?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

 In its previous rulings, the court held that once a defendant points out a lack of factual support for an essential element in the plaintiff's case, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with evidence (by affidavit, deposition, discovery response, or other form sanctioned by La. Code Civ. P. arts. 966 and 967) to demonstrate that he or she would be able to meet his or her burden at trial. Applying this in the case at bar, the court held that there was no genuine issue as to whether the church parking area was unreasonably dangerous because the church and its insurer produced evidence, through affidavits, depositions, and photographs, that the parking area had been used by congregants for decades without incident and the complained-of condition, the unpaved grassy parking area, was obvious and apparent to anyone who might potentially encounter it. Allen failed to produce any evidence to rebut that evidence or demonstrate how the alleged defects caused the accident in which a congregant struck plaintiff with her vehicle that he or she would be able to meet his or her burden at trial.