Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University
673 So. 2d 585, 1996 WL 255951 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner has no duty to warn or protect against a potentially dangerous condition that is obvious and apparent to all, as such a condition is not considered unreasonably dangerous.
Facts:
- In January 1988, Louisiana Tech University distributed a "Winter Storms Bulletin" to students in anticipation of a rare snow storm.
- The bulletin encouraged students to enjoy the snow and activities like sledding, but to use "good judgment" and avoid specific dangers like sledding into traffic.
- Following the storm, Earl Garland Pitre, Jr., a 20-year-old student, joined friends to sled down a hill on campus that sloped into a stadium parking lot.
- The parking lot contained several concrete-based light poles, spaced approximately 150 feet apart.
- Pitre and three others went down the hill lying on their backs, head-first, on a large plastic garbage can lid.
- The garbage can lid, over which the riders had no steering control, collided with the concrete base of one of the light poles.
- As a result of the collision, Pitre sustained injuries that resulted in permanent paralysis from the mid-chest down.
Procedural Posture:
- Earl G. Pitre, Jr. and his parents sued Louisiana Tech University and the State of Louisiana in a trial court for negligence.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding Tech had no duty to Pitre.
- Pitre, the appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.
- After trial, the trial court again found for the defendant, Louisiana Tech, holding it owed no duty.
- Pitre again appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court, finding its prior ruling on the existence of a duty was law of the case, and allocated fault at 75% to Pitre and 25% to Louisiana Tech.
- Both Louisiana Tech (applicant) and Pitre (applicant) sought and were granted writs of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner have a duty to warn or protect a sledder from the risk of colliding with an obvious and apparent light pole located on its property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Victory
No. A landowner does not have a duty to warn or protect against the obvious risk of colliding with a visible light pole because such a condition is not unreasonably dangerous. The court's duty-risk analysis determined that the light pole had high social utility (providing light for safety) and the likelihood of harm was minimal because the pole was obvious and apparent to anyone exercising reasonable care. The court found that the risks of sledding into a fixed object are well-known, and the cost of preventing such harm by protecting every fixed object on campus would be enormous. The university's bulletin encouraged sledding only with "good judgment," and the university-student relationship does not impose a duty on the school to protect adult students from obvious dangers.
Concurring - Justice Lemmon
No. The issue is not an absence of duty, but a lack of a breach of duty. The university had a general duty to act reasonably, and it fulfilled this duty by issuing the bulletin warning students to use good judgment and by having campus police stop unsafe activities. Because the risk of colliding with the light pole was obvious and apparent to everyone, the university did not breach its duty of reasonable care by failing to provide a specific warning about that particular risk or by failing to erect protective barriers.
Dissenting - Justice Watson
Yes. The university did have a duty to warn or protect against this danger. By encouraging sledding in its bulletin, the university implicitly invited students to use the Assembly Center hill, a known sledding spot. The university's own police had previously stopped sledding on that hill due to the danger posed by the light poles, demonstrating the university's awareness of the specific risk. The burden of prevention, such as placing hay bales around the poles, was minimal. The majority's holding improperly revives the doctrines of assumption of risk and contributory negligence instead of correctly comparing the fault of both parties.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the role of the "open and obvious danger" doctrine within Louisiana's duty-risk analysis, particularly in the context of comparative fault. The ruling establishes that a condition's obviousness is not a defense related to the plaintiff's conduct (like assumption of risk), but a factor in the initial determination of whether the defendant owed a duty at all. By concluding that an obvious condition is not "unreasonably dangerous," the court sets a precedent that landowners are not insurers of safety and are not liable for harms resulting from patent risks that a reasonable person would be expected to observe and avoid. This decision reinforces that adult college students are expected to be responsible for their own safety when engaging in recreational activities with known risks.
