Smith v. Northshore Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014 CA 0628.,2014 CA 0628.
• Citation: Smith v. Northshore Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 170 So.3d 173 (La. App. 2015)
• Parties: Joy SMITH v. NORTHSHORE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., and Northshore Regional Medical Center, L.L.C.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

170 So.3d 173

Joy SMITH

v.NORTHSHORE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., and Northshore Regional Medical Center, L.L.C.

No. 2014 CA 0628.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Jan. 26, 2015.

Jonathan P. Friedman, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant Joy Smith.

Jacob Best, Franklin D. Beahm, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Northshore Regional Medical Center, Inc. and Northshore Regional Medical Center, LLC.

B. Frank Davis, Metairie, Louisiana, Attorney for Defendant/Appellee Hospital Housekeeping Systems, L.L.C.

Before McDONALD, CRAIN, and HOLDRIDGE,¹ JJ.

Opinion

McDONALD, J.

In this appeal, a visitor who slipped and fell at a hospital challenges a summary judgment dismissing her claim for damages against the hospital. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 13, 2005, Joy Smith and Cynthia Bester went to visit a patient in the intensive care unit at Northshore Regional Medical Center (NRMC) in Slidell, Louisiana. As they walked down a hospital hall, Ms. Smith slipped, fell, and injured her left knee, left hip, and back. She filed a petition for damages against NRMC,² alleging she fell in a puddle of water at a location in the hall where a “worker” had been using a buffer machine immediately prior to the accident. NRMC answered the petition, and later filed a third party demand, naming Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC, (HHS) and Philip Stevens, as third party defendants. NRMC alleged it had contracted with HHS to perform housekeeping services, and that, at the time of the accident, HHS's employee, Mr. Stevens, was buffing the floor where Ms. Smith fell. HHS answered the third party demand and admitted its contractual relationship with NRMC. Ms. Smith then amended her petition to add HHS as a defendant. In their respective responsive pleadings, NRMC and HHS both alleged the comparative fault of Ms. Smith and each other.

In due course, NRMC filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Ms. Smith's claims against it. NRMC argued summary judgment was proper because, as a property owner, it could not be held liable for conditions on its premises created by an independently-contracted maintenance company, HHS, where that maintenance company was contractually obligated to maintain the area where the accident occurred. Ms. Smith and HHS opposed the summary judgment, contending there were disputed issues regarding NRMC's liability based on its separate negligence and/or the control it maintained over HHS.

After a hearing, the trial court signed a judgment, dated January 3, 2014, granting NRMC's motion for summary judgment and dismissing Ms. Smith's claims against it. Ms. Smith appeals contending the trial court erred by granting the summary

judgment without considering NRMC's potential liability.

DISCUSSION

The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, except those disallowed by LSA–C.C.P. art. 969 ; the procedure is favored and shall be construed to accomplish these ends. LSA–C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). Summary judgment shall be rendered in favor of the mover if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with the affidavits, if any, admitted for purposes of the motion, show there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. LSA–C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).³ An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. In re Succession of Beard, 13–1717 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/6/14), 147 So.3d 753, 759–60. Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality, whether a particular fact in dispute is material, for purposes of summary judgment, can be seen only in light of the substantive law applicable to the case. Gaspard v. Graves, 05–1042 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/29/06), 934 So.2d 158, 160, writs denied, 06–0882, 06–0958 (La.6/16/06), 929 So.2d 1286, 1289.

The substantive law applicable in this case is tort law. Every act of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it. LSA–C.C. art. 2315. Under a negligence standard, a hospital owes a duty to its visitors to exercise reasonable care for their safety, commensurate with the particular circumstances involved. Terrance v. Baton Rouge General Medical Center, 10–0011 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/11/10), 39 So.3d 842, 844, writ denied, 10–1624 (La.10/8/10), 46 So.3d 1271. As the plaintiff in this slip-and-fall case, Ms. Smith must show that she slipped, fell, and was injured because of a foreign substance on the hospital's premises. The burden then shifts to the hospital to exculpate itself from the presumption of

negligence.⁴ Id. Thus, as the mover on the motion for summary judgment, NRMC retained the burden of showing that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding its lack of negligence. See LSA–C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2).

In support of its motion, NRMC introduced evidence demonstrating that, at the time of Ms. Smith's accident, NRMC and HHS had a contract in place whereby HHS was responsible for the daily cleaning and floor care of NRMC patient rooms and public/common areas, including corridors.⁵ The contract provided that HHS was an independent contractor responsible for hiring and supervising all staff necessary to provide the contracted services. Thus, according to NRMC, the evidence demonstrates Ms. Smith's injuries were caused by the actions of an independent contractor's employee (or her own carelessness), and that there is no evidence suggesting any negligence by NRMC.⁶

In opposition, Ms. Smith argues that, notwithstanding the NRMC–HHS contract,

there are disputed factual issues regarding the level of control NRMC exerted over HHS in the performance of its duties; thus, she contends, NRMC may still be liable for her damages, and summary judgment was inappropriate. In support of her position, Ms. Smith points to several provisions of the NRMC–HHS contract, suggesting that these provisions negate a true independent contractor relationship between NRMC and HHS. She also introduced evidence indicating that Travis Sisson, the NRMC officer who supervised the hospital's housekeeping department, interacted daily with Bill Walker, the HHS manager who had an onsite office in the hospital, regarding housekeeping issues.

The significance of an independent contractor relationship is that the principal is generally not liable for the tortious acts an independent contractor commits in the course of performing its contractual duties. See Smith v. Zellerbach, 486 So.2d 798, 801 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 489 So.2d 246 (La.1986). The factors used to determine the existence of an independent contractor relationship are: (1) a valid contract between the parties; (2) the work being done is of an independent nature such that the contractor may employ non-exclusive means in accomplishing it; (3) the contract calls for specific piecework as a unit to be done according to the contractor's own methods, without being subject to the control and direction of the principal, except as to result; (4) there is a specific price for the overall undertaking; and (5) the duration of the work is for a specific time and not subject to termination or discontinuance at the will of either side without a corresponding liability for its breach. Tower Credit, Inc. v. Carpenter, 01–2875 (La.9/4/02), 825 So.2d 1125, 1129 ; Hulbert v. Democratic State Central Committee of Louisiana, 10–1910 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/10/11), 68 So.3d 667, 670, writ denied, 11–1520 (La.10/7/11), 71 So.3d 316.

The primary focus in determining whether a relationship is a principal-independent contractor relationship or an employer-employee relationship is the right to exercise control over the work. Hulbert, 68 So.3d at 670–71. Ms. Smith argues that the following provisions of the NRMC–HHS contract indicate that NRMC exerted control over HHS: HHS employees are required to adhere to NRMC rules and regulations, abide

by the terms of the NRMC–HHS contract, and comply with NRMC's drug screening policy. Further, HHS is required to meet certain internal and external performance standards and is subjected to NRMC's quarterly performance review. Regarding floor care of common areas, the NRMC–HHS contract requires that HHS dry mop, wet mop, and spray buff all corridor floors at specified intervals.⁷

We have reviewed these provisions and do not find that they show NRMC exerted the type of control over HHS that would negate an independent contractor relationship. Mr. Sisson's deposition testimony confirms this finding. He explained that, as NRMC's chief operating officer, he supervised the hospital's housekeeping department, which, at the time of Ms. Smith's fall, was outsourced to HHS. As part of his regular daily rounds, he interacted with HHS's director, Bill Walker, who had an office at NRMC. Although Mr. Sisson would mention any housekeeping concerns to Mr. Walker, he did not interact with any HHS employee below the management level. HHS hired its own employees, assigned their job responsibilities, and had them submit daily reports to HHS regarding task completion. HHS had its own policy of soliciting feedback from NRMC departments regarding satisfaction with its cleaning, and Mr. Sisson met with upper level HHS management on a quarterly basis to review this feedback. Mr. Sisson acknowledged that HHS employees attended NRMC's new employee orientation and had to adhere to NRMC rules but clarified that NRMC referred any HHS employee discipline issues to Mr. Walker to handle. Thus, although HHS was required to adhere to certain NRMC rules and policies, and had a specific schedule for floor care maintenance, it was HHS, not NRMC, which maintained control over HHS employees and the methods by which their work was accomplished.

Further, the...