Roy Bufkin, Jr. v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC

Supreme Court of Louisiana
2014 WL 5394087, 2014 La. LEXIS 2257, 171 So. 3d 851 (2014)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A property owner or custodian has no duty to warn of a condition that is open and obvious, and which does not create an unreasonable risk of harm to a person exercising ordinary care and prudence. A large, visible object like a construction dumpster that obstructs a line of sight is not considered unreasonably dangerous if it is comparable to common, everyday obstructions like a parked vehicle.

Facts:

Shamrock Construction Co., Inc. ('Shamrock') was renovating a building at 622 Conti Street and blocked the adjacent sidewalk.
Shamrock placed a large red dumpster, measuring approximately 22 feet long and over 5 feet high, in several on-street parking spaces next to the closed sidewalk.
A sign directed pedestrians to use the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street.
Royce Bufkin, Jr. encountered the closure and chose to cross the street mid-block, from a position next to the dumpster.
Conti Street is a one-way street; Bufkin looked to his left for oncoming traffic but failed to look to his right before stepping into the street.
A bicyclist traveling the wrong way down the one-way street struck Bufkin as he emerged from behind the dumpster.
Bufkin, a thirty-year resident of the area, admitted he had been aware of the dumpster's presence for over four months before the accident.
Bufkin also acknowledged he was aware that people sometimes travel the wrong way on one-way streets in the French Quarter.

Procedural Posture:

Royce Bufkin, Jr. filed a personal injury lawsuit against Shamrock Construction Co., Inc. and others in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
Shamrock filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty to Bufkin.
The district court denied Shamrock's motion for summary judgment.
Shamrock sought review from the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court), which denied its writ application.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted Shamrock's writ application to review the denial of summary judgment.

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 construction company owe a legal duty to warn a pedestrian about a line-of-sight obstruction created by a large, clearly visible construction dumpster placed in on-street parking spaces, when the obstruction is obvious and apparent?

Opinions:

Majority - Hughes, J.

No. A construction company does not owe a legal duty to warn pedestrians of an obvious and apparent line-of-sight obstruction created by a large, visible dumpster. The court found that under a duty-risk analysis, the threshold question is whether a duty is owed. Applying a risk-utility balancing test, the court determined the dumpster did not create an unreasonable risk of harm because it was an open and obvious condition. Its size was comparable to that of a large pickup truck or van, an everyday obstruction pedestrians are expected to navigate with ordinary care. A pedestrian has a duty to see what should be seen, and Bufkin failed to exercise ordinary prudence by not looking both ways before crossing from behind the known, obvious obstruction. Therefore, Shamrock had no duty to provide additional warnings or create a buffer zone.

Concurring - Guidry, J.

No. The contractor owed no duty because the dumpster constituted an open and obvious hazard. While the question of unreasonable risk is typically one of fact, summary judgment is appropriate where a plaintiff cannot produce evidence that a condition is unreasonably dangerous. The law does not impose a duty to protect against an open and obvious hazard. In this case, Bufkin was aware of the dumpster and could have easily avoided the risk by crossing at a designated crosswalk or by exercising greater care, such as looking both ways before stepping into the street. Because the plaintiff could have easily avoided the risk presented by the open and obvious condition, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strength of the 'open and obvious' doctrine in Louisiana tort law, allowing defendants to defeat negligence claims at the summary judgment stage. It clarifies that a condition is not deemed 'unreasonably dangerous' merely because it creates a line-of-sight obstruction, especially when the obstruction is similar to common environmental features like parked vehicles. The ruling underscores the high premium placed on a plaintiff's duty to exercise reasonable care for their own safety. Consequently, this precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in premises liability cases where the hazard was readily apparent and could have been avoided with ordinary prudence.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Roy Bufkin, Jr. v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC (2014)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature