Pryor v. Iberia Parish Sch. Bd..
| Decision Date | 29 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 2010–C–1683.,2010–C–1683. |
| Citation | 267 Ed. Law Rep. 939,60 So.3d 594 |
| Parties | Jeanine PRYORv.IBERIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
60 So.3d 594
267 Ed. Law Rep. 939
Jeanine PRYOR
v.
IBERIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.
No. 2010–C–1683.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
March 15, 2011.Rehearing Denied April 29, 2011.
[60 So.3d 595]
Provosty, Sadler, Delaunay, Fiorenza & Sobel, John Dexter Ryland, Ronald J. Fiorenza, Alexandria, for Applicant.M. Terrance Hoychick, APLC, Mark Terrance Hoychick, Eunice, for Respondent.PER CURIAM.
[2010-1683 (La. 1] We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the bleachers in a high school stadium constituted an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, we conclude the district court properly held the bleachers do not present an unreasonable risk of harm under the facts of this case.
On October 29, 2004, plaintiff, Jeanine Pryor, attended a football game between Barbe High School and New Iberia High School to watch her grandson, who played on the Barbe High School team. The game was played at Lloyd G. Porter Stadium, a facility owned and maintained by the Iberia Parish School Board (“school board”), which served as the home stadium for New Iberia High School. At the time of the game, plaintiff was sixty-nine years old, and was recovering from hip surgery performed approximately one year earlier.1
Spectator seating is positioned on both the east and west sides of the football field. On the west side of the field, which is traditionally where the home team's fans sit, the seating consists of uniform and symmetrical wood board seats with concrete [2010-1683 (La. 2] risers. This facility sits well off the ground, and has entrance and exit ramps leading to the seats. The west side seating was also equipped with disability access ramps and handicap-accessible seating.
On the east side of the field, which is where the visiting team's fans traditionally sit, there is a metal frame bleacher approximately fifteen feet high and two hundred fifty feet long. Spectators are seated on nine wood seat boards with nine wood foot boards. The bleachers have rails around the sides and rear, but do not have rails in the front, and do not have aisles to facilitate entrance or exit. The seat boards are uniform and symmetrical, with the exception of the space between the first and second seat boards, which are positioned approximately eighteen inches apart. All of the other seat boards are approximately eight inches apart in height.
When plaintiff and her family arrived at the stadium, they ascended the wooden bleachers on the east side of the stadium, or the visitors' side. Plaintiff testified “the first seat board was unusually high,” and she could not step up the eighteen inches from the first row to the second, so she
[60 So.3d 596]
grabbed the second board and lay on her side so she could swing one leg up at a time. She then stood up, and her daughter assisted her for the remainder of the way up the rows.
At halftime, plaintiff had to use the restroom, and she descended the bleachers with her daughter's assistance. When they came to the eighteen-inch gap between the first and second row, instead of lying on her side and swinging her legs over the gap as she had done earlier, plaintiff attempted to simply step down. In the process, plaintiff fell and sustained injuries.
As a result of the accident, plaintiff filed suit against the school board, alleging the bleachers were defective. The matter proceeded to a bench trial before the district court. At the conclusion of trial, the district court rendered judgment in favor of the [2010-1683 (La. 3] school board, dismissing plaintiff's suit with prejudice. In reasons for judgment, the district court determined that under a risk/utility analysis, the condition of the bleachers was not unreasonably dangerous.
Plaintiff appealed. The court of appeal reversed and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Board., 2010–23 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/16/10), 42 So.3d 1015. In rejecting the district court's reasoning, the court of appeal found there was “no utility or social value in exposing visiting patrons to an eighteen-inch vertical differential between the seat boards in question.” 2010–23 at p. 6, 42 So.3d at 1020. The appellate court then rendered judgment apportioning 70% fault to the school board, and 30% fault to plaintiff. It awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $530,745.79, consisting of $300,000 in general damages, and $230,745.79 in special damages.
Upon the school board's application, we granted certiorari to consider the correctness of this ruling. Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Board, 2010–1683 (La.11/5/10), 50 So.3d 822. The narrow issue presented for our consideration is whether the bleachers are unreasonably dangerous.
The general rule is that the owner or custodian of property has a duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. The owner or custodian must discover any unreasonably dangerous condition on the premises, and either correct the condition or warn potential victims of its existence. Smith v. The Runnels Schools, Inc., 04–1329 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 907 So.2d 109, 112. Nonetheless, we have recognized that defendants generally have no duty to protect against an open and obvious hazard. If the facts of a particular case show that the complained-of [2010-1683 (La. 4] condition should be obvious to all, the condition may not be unreasonably dangerous, and the defendant may owe no duty to the plaintiff. Eisenhardt v. Snook, 08–1287 (La.3/17/09), 8 So.3d 541; Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 08–0528 (La.12/2/08), 995 So.2d 1184. It is the court's obligation to decide which risks are unreasonable based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc., 455 So.2d 1364, 1371 (La.1984). The ultimate determination of unreasonable risk of harm is subject to review under the manifest error standard. Reed v. Wal–Mart, Inc., 97–1174 (La.3/4/98), 708 So.2d 362.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broussard v. State
...The Court of Appeal, applying the four-prong, risk-utility balancing test articulated by this Court in Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Board, 10-1683, p. 4 (La. 3/15/11), 60 So. 3d 594, 597 (per curium), concluded the elevator's social utility outweighed the risk created by its defective, yet......
-
In re
...of Appeal, applying the four-prong, risk-utility balancing test articulated by this Court in Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Board, 10–1683, p. 4 (La.3/15/11), 60 So.3d 594, 597 (per curiam), concluded the elevator's social utility outweighed the risk created by its defective, yet readily app......
-
Bufkin v. Felipe's La., LLC
...obvious hazard, and reasonably safe for persons exercising ordinary care and prudence.” Supra, p. 858.In Pryor v. Iberia Parish School Bd., 10–1683 (La.3/15/11), 60 So.3d 594, 596–97, this court explained as follows:The general rule is that the owner or custodian of property has a duty to k......
-
Badeaux v. Eymard Bros. Towing Co.
...a parking lot where students are sledding, see id. at 591-92, an 18-inch gap between wooden seat boards on a set of bleachers, see Pryor, 60 So.3d at 598, or even a pothole in a see Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc., 995 So.2d 1184, 1187 (La. 2008). The Court finds that the lack of non......
-
Recent Developments: Broussard v. State and the Not So Obvious Application of the Open and Obvious Doctrine
...See also Broussard v. State, No. 11–0479, 2012 WL 1079182 (La. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2012). 22. See, e.g. , Pryor v. Iberia Parish Sch. Bd., 60 So. 3d 594, 597 (La. 2011) (per curiam); Pitre v. La. Tech Univ., 673 So. 2d 585, 591–93 (La. 1996). 23. Broussard , 113 So. 3d at 181. 24. Id. at 194.......