Chambers v. Village of Moreauville
| Decision Date | 24 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | 2011-C -0898 |
| Parties | ARLENE CHAMBERS v. VILLAGE OF MOREAUVILLE (Parish of Avoyelles) |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
The Opinions handed down on the 24th day of January, 2012, are as follows:
For the reasons stated herein, the judgments of the court of appeal and trial court are reversed and judgment is rendered in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the Village of Moreauville with prejudice.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
We granted a writ in this personal injury case to determine whether the Village of Moreauville ("Moreauville") breached its duty to keep its sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The specific issue is whether a one-and-one-quarter to one-and-one-half inch deviation created an unreasonable risk of harm. After review of the record and the applicable law, we find Moreauville's failure to repair the deviation did not amount to a breach of its duty to keep its sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. Therefore, we reverse the judgments of the lower courts and render judgment in favor of the defendant.
On April 19, 2008, Arlene Chambers ("Chambers") and a friend, Annette Bowman ("Bowman"), were walking from a former co-worker's funeral at Simpson Baptist Church to Chambers' home. Although they were driven to the church by a friend, they decided to walk the seven-tenths of a mile to Chambers' home, where Bowman's car was parked. During most of this walk, Bowman walked slightly in front of Chambers on the left portion of the sidewalk, while Chambers walked on the right portion of the sidewalk. When adjacent to 234Tassin Street, Chambers noticed one panel of the sidewalk sloped down and the adjacent panel sloped upward and began navigating these slopes. However, she did not see a one-and-one-quarter to one-and-one-half inch ledge at the top of the upward slope on the right edge of the sidewalk, and she tripped and fell when her boot caught the ledge.1 As a result, Chambers sustained a comminuted fracture of the radius of her right arm.
Chambers sued Moreauville claiming damages for injuries sustained in the fall. The claim was tried as a bench trial on August 4, 2010, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding Moreauville one hundred percent at fault, and assessing damages in the amount of $349,214.39.2
At trial, plaintiff's expert, Philip Beard ("Beard"), a consulting civil and structural engineer, testified that the ledge is a tripping hazard because it is a vertical change in elevation exceeding one-half inch. He further testified that the decline and incline immediately preceding the ledge make the ledge even more dangerous. He explained that normally, when people are walking on a level surface their body remains vertical, and as they step their foot swings in a small arch, which is never more than one-half inch to one inch above the surface of the sidewalk. However, when there is a slope before they get to a ledge, their body has changed to an upward posture and their steps are shorter so their foot is closer to the ledge, making the ledge more dangerous. Defendant's expert, J. Ronald Landreneaux ("Landreneaux"), a consulting environmental and civil engineer, testified that the sidewalk's condition is not unreasonably dangerous. Heconcluded Chambers was aware of the poor condition of the sidewalk on this street, she acknowledged the sidewalk condition before she reached it, and safely traveled the decline. Landreneaux further opined Chambers could have walked on the smooth side of the sidewalk because Bowman was in front of her at this location. Finally Landreneaux concluded Chambers could have avoided this incident by stepping over the elevation or moving to the left and not encountering this point.
After discussing the expert testimony and case law relating to whether this defect constituted an unreasonable risk of harm, the trial judge stated in his oral reasons for judgment:
The deviation is not important to me. What is important is the cost factor and it's important in my ruling. I cannot allow a municipality to say the cost factor will be our escape clause. But a municipality can say it would cost ...to[sic] much. I am not saying it's a judicially imposed duty on a municipality but if you got sidewalks in your custody and guard your[sic] responsible for them not the landowners. The law is clear. They've got to be reasonably safe for pedestrians. The municipality has to budget and prepare for this. They just got to. They can't just let them go and then say well you got an escape clause. It's a cross[sic] factor. We can't fix them all over town. We've got to. I mean if we don't, if a municipality can play that card every time and say the cost factor well then they. no longer have to keep them reasonably safe. So for those reasons, I find the City of Moreauville one hundred percent at fault for the accident at issue.
On appeal to a three-judge panel, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 10-1368 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/6/11), 60 So.3d 125. The court of appeal affirmed the portion of the trial court's ruling which provided that the elevated differential created an unreasonable risk of harm, but it amended the trial court judgment to attribute ten percent of the fault to Chambers. Id. at 132-33. Additionally, the court of appeal reversed the portion of the trial court judgment awarding Chambers damages for loss of future earnings. Id. at 134.
We granted Moreauville's writ application to consider whether the one-and-one-quarter to one-and-one-half inch sidewalk deviation created an unreasonable risk of harm. Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 11-0898 (La. 9/2/11), 68 So.3d 532.
Generally, a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's or jury's finding of fact in absence of "manifest error" or unless it is "clearly wrong." Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541, (La. 2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731, 735 (citing Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989)). However, if a legal error interdicts the fact finding process, the manifest error standard of review is no longer applicable, and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should make an independent de novo review of the record and determine which party should prevail by a preponderance of evidence. Evans, supra at 735 (); McLean v. Hunter, 495 So.2d 1298, 1303 (La. 1986). There is a legal error when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and these errors are prejudicial. Evans, supra at 735. Legal errors are prejudicial when they deprive a party of substantial rights and materially affect the outcome. Evans, supra at 735. When a prejudicial error of law skews the trial court's finding of a material issue of fact and causes it to pretermit other issues, the appellate court must, if it can, render judgment on the record by applying the correct law and determining the essential material facts de novo. Evans, supra at 735 (citing Lasha v. Olin Corp, 625 So.2d 1002, 1006 (La. 1993)).
As explained herein, we find the trial court applied incorrect principles of law because it failed to consider a necessary component of the risk-utility balancing test in determining whether the instant deviation created an unreasonablerisk of harm. Specifically, the trial judge erred when he expressly declined to consider cost, an indispensable component of the risk-utility balancing test. Additionally, we find this error prejudicial because it skewed the trial court's finding of a material issue of fact, that the condition of the sidewalk created an unreasonable risk of harm. Accordingly, this Court will make an independent de novo review of the record and address whether the trial court erred in finding the condition of the sidewalk created an unreasonable risk of harm.
Under La. R.S. 9:2800, in order to prove a public entity is liable for damages caused by a thing, the plaintiff must establish: (1) custody or ownership of the defective thing by the public entity; (2) the defect created an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the defect; (4) the public entity failed to take corrective action within a reasonable time; and (5) causation. Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern R.R., 00-2628 (La. 4/3/01), 786 So.2d 682, 690; Dupree v. City of New Orleans, 1999-3651 (La. 8/31/00), 765 So.2d 1002, 1008. Here, the specific issue is whether the instant sidewalk deviation created an unreasonable risk of harm.
Courts have adopted a risk-utility balancing test to determine whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous, wherein the trier of fact balances the gravity and the risk of harm against the individual and societal utility and the cost and feasibility of repair. Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Bd., 10-1683 (La. 3/15/11), 60 So.3d 594, 596 (citing Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 97-1174 (La. 3/4/98), 708 So.2d 362, 365; Boyle v. Board of Sup'rs, Louisiana State University, 96-1158 (La. 1/14/97), 685 So.2d 1080, 1083). This Court has applied the risk-utility balancing test to determine whether a defect in a sidewalk creates an unreasonable risk of harm, and determined there is no fixed rule in determining whether a defect in a sidewalk is unreasonably dangerous. Boyle, supra at 1082 (citing White v. City of Alexandria, 43 So.2d 618, 620 (La. 1949)). Instead, the facts andsurrounding circumstances of each case control. Id. However, the test applied requires the...
To continue reading
Request your trial