Chatman v. S. Univ. at New Orleans

• Decision Date: 06 July 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2015–CA–1179.,2015–CA–1179.
• Citation: 197 So.3d 366
• Parties: Gloria CHATMAN v. SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AT NEW ORLEANS, The Board of Supervisors at Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, On behalf of Southern University of New Orleans, The Southern University System, Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College and Victor Ukpolo.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

197 So.3d 366

Gloria CHATMAN

v.SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AT NEW ORLEANS, The Board of Supervisors at Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, On behalf of Southern University of New Orleans, The Southern University System, Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College and Victor Ukpolo.

No. 2015–CA–1179.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

July 6, 2016.

Lloyd N. Frischhertz, Jr., Dominick F. Impastato, III, Frischhertz Poulliard Frischhertz & Impastato, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, and Gaynell, Williams, Gretna, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee.

Thomas M. Flanagan, Jamie D. Cangelosi, Sean P. Brady, Flanagan Partners, LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.

(Court composed of Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, JR., Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge ROSEMARY LEDET, Judge SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS ).

SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS

, Judge.

This is an appeal of a June 2015 judgment by the trial court rendered after a jury verdict in favor of appellee Gloria Chatman and against appellant Southern University at New Orleans (“SUNO”), finding that SUNO was 15 percent at fault for the personal injuries sustained by Ms. Chatman when she was attacked by her roommate and a non-resident minor in an on-campus housing facility in January 2010.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The physical attack that prompted this civil suit—as well as a criminal prosecution of Ms. Chatman's roommate, Terneisha Sparks–Sanders—occurred on the night of January 18, 2010. The scene of the attack was the two-bedroom, on-campus apartment that Ms. Chatman and Ms. Sanders were leasing from SUNO. Ms. Chatman and Ms. Sanders had been roommates for about one week; they, however, had been best friends for several years. They met in high school, and decided to be roommates.

At the time of the attack, four people were present in the apartment—Ms. Chatman; Ms. Sanders; Ms. Sanders's 16–year–old cousin, Jamisha Sanders; and Jamisha's boyfriend, Dale. Jamisha and her boyfriend were visiting Ms. Sanders.

The attack occurred during a heated dispute over missing food that had been purchased earlier in the week. Ms. Chatman and Ms. Sanders disagree over the details of the fight, which are discussed elsewhere in this opinion. As a result of the attack, Ms. Chatman was seriously injured; she completely lost the use of one of her eyes. For her conduct in the attack, Ms. Sanders was convicted of second degree battery and imprisoned.

In November 2010, Ms. Chatman filed suit against SUNO as the “owner, operator, and manager of the premises at issue in this litigation.” The gist of Ms. Chatman's allegations is that SUNO was liable for failing to protect her from being severely injured in a physical attack by not only her own roommate, but also a “non-student/non-resident” of SUNO. Ms. Chatman's allegations included the following:

• SUNO warranted to her that “there would be on-site security and professional staff members available at the on-campus housing on a daily basis”;

• SUNO permitted a non-student/non-resident to reside in the on-campus apartment in which she was injured;

• SUNO failed to have proper administrative staff, such as residence assistants, on site to prevent non-students from residing in the on-campus apartment; and

• SUNO failed to provide her with the identity of the administrative staff that was available to receive complaints of conduct in violation of on-campus housing policy.

Ms. Chatman alleged that SUNO's substandard conduct was the cause-in-fact and the legal cause of her damages.

In January 2010, SUNO opened Phase I of its new Residential Life facility, which had 10 buildings and about 150 students. The facility had a residential life office located a few minutes' walk from the apartment buildings. Ms. Chatman and Ms. Sanders were among those first 150 housing students. SUNO selected an apartment-style, as opposed to a dormitory-style, design for its on-campus housing facility.

Each of SUNO's apartment buildings had a community assistant (“CA”), who was a SUNO student and employee, assigned to each building. In SUNO's housing literature, a CA was described as a “leader and advisor” who “enforce[s] policies to help ensure the safety and well-being of the students.”

When Phase I opened in January 2010, there were 10 CAs living in the apartment complex. At least one CA was on duty each night when the residential life office was closed. The CA on duty had a master key to all the apartments for inspection purposes. The CAs were required to perform security checks of the buildings and the floors twice per week. Although SUNO planned to provide its students with the cell-phone numbers and e-mail addresses of its CAs, this plan was not implemented until after the attack on Ms. Chatman. According to SUNO's housing consultant, the CAs' cell phone numbers were not given to the students because the CAs had a limited number of minutes on their personal cell phones.

Visitors were allowed in the apartments subject to the following Residential Housing Rules:

Number of Occupants

The maximum number of people living in an apartment shall be no more than ... two people in a two bedroom apartment.... Guests staying more than 48 hours without our permission will be considered unauthorized occupants and you will be in violation of the lease.

Visitors

You are responsible for your guests' compliance with all these Community Policies and parking regulations. Overnight guests are allowed only with the approval of management. Guests who stay after 2:00 a.m. will be considered overnight guests. Guests may stay no more than 48 hours in a row, not to exceed twelve (12) nights in any given semester with prior approval from Management.

Minor Children

Children are prohibited from overnight stay in the apartment. Children who are visiting must be supervised at all times, including balconies, parking lot and common areas. Baby sitting is not allowed in the apartment. [Internal emphasis omitted.]

The Residential Housing Rules also authorized SUNO staff to enter the apartments for the purpose of inspection and when SUNO community policies were violated.

SUNO provided its resident students with the following methods for reporting problems: (1) locating any of the 10 CAs; (2) visiting or calling the residential housing office; (3) flagging down, calling, or notifying campus police on-line; and (4) calling 911.

On January 10, 2010, Ms. Chatman and Ms. Sanders moved into their two-bedroom, on-campus apartment. Ms. Chatman and Ms. Sanders, who were best friends since high school, decided to be roommates. Ms. Chatman testified that when she signed the lease, she was not given any information about the CAs. She testified that no group meetings were held to introduce the students to the CAs. According to Ms. Chatman, she only coincidentally met the CA assigned to her apartment building, Robert Fezekas, on the day that she was moving into the apartment. Mr. Fezekas helped her carry her television into her apartment, introduced himself to her as a CA, and told her that his apartment was directly above her apartment.

During her first week in the apartment, Ms. Chatman did not spend the night at the apartment; she spent the night elsewhere with her boyfriend. During that week, Ms. Sanders had multiple visitors at the apartment. According to Ms. Chatman, Ms. Sanders's visitors included Ms. Sanders's boyfriend; her boyfriend's aunt; the aunt's two minor children; Ms. Sanders's three-year-old child; Jamisha (Ms. Sanders's 16–year–old cousin); and Jamisha's boyfriend. Ms. Sanders acknowledged that she understood that guests were to register if they spent the night. She also acknowledged that Jamisha and her boyfriend spent the night at the apartment and that she never registered them.

On the afternoon of Thursday, January 14, 2010, Ms. Chatman, Ms. Sanders, and Jamisha went to a Wal–Mart together to buy food and supplies for the apartment. When they returned to the apartment, Jamisha carried her suitcase into the apartment. Because Jamisha was a minor, and not a university student, Ms. Chatman was concerned that Jamisha spending the night was in violation of the university's rules against overnight visitors. She also was concerned that this violation might cause them to be thrown out of the apartment. To avoid conflict, Ms. Chatman did not raise this issue with either Ms. Sanders or Jamisha. Instead, Ms. Chatman went to Mr. Fezekas's apartment to discuss the problem. Mr. Fezekas, however, did not answer the door.

On the following night, which was a Friday, Ms. Sanders's boyfriend came to the apartment and began banging on the windows and door. Ms. Sanders hid in the bathroom. According to Ms. Chatman, both she and Ms. Sanders were scared. Later that night, Ms. Chatman again went upstairs to see the CA, Mr. Fezekas. She planned to tell him that she “was in an uncomfortable situation” due to her roommate's boyfriend “running around the apartment” and banging on the door coupled with her roommate's minor cousin Jamisha, who Ms. Chatman “barely [felt] safe around,” staying in the apartment. Once more, Mr. Fezekas was not there.

On Saturday, January 16, 2010, Ms. Chatman went home to spend the Martin Luther King Day weekend with her mother and family. On that Sunday morning, Ms. Chatman and her mother returned to the apartment briefly to pick up some paperwork that Ms. Chatman needed to apply for an internship. According to Ms. Chatman, when they arrived they found that the front door was unlocked, and that Jamisha and her boyfriend were in bed under one of Ms. Chatman's blankets. Ms. Chatman said that “[f]ood was all over the counter.” Ms. Sanders was not present in the apartment. Although Ms. Chatman felt this situation presented safety concerns, she did not address her concerns with Jamisha or her boyfriend to avoid conflict. Instead, Ms. Chatman retrieved her paperwork and returned to the car. She had a discussion with her mother, and they went...