Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Louisiana » Louisiana Supreme Court » 2009 » 2008-C-1287 DON L. EISENHARDT v. DORLES SNOOK AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY
2008-C-1287 DON L. EISENHARDT v. DORLES SNOOK AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY
State: Louisiana
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 2008-C-1287
Case Date: 01/01/2009
Preview:FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #015 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of March, 2009, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2008-C -1287 DON L. EISENHARDT v. DORLES SNOOK AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY (Parish of Bossier) For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal, insofar as it reverses and amends the district court's judgment , is reversed. The judgment of the district court dismissing the demand of plaintiff, Don L. Eisenhardt, with prejudice is reinstated and affirmed in its entirety. Plaintiff to bear all costs in this court. JOHNSON, J., dissents.

03/17/09

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 08-C-1287 DON L. EISENHARDT V. DORLES SNOOK AND STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF BOSSIER

PER CURIAM At issue in this case is whether the court of appeal erred in reversing the district court's judgment in part and assessing fault to defendants. For the reasons that follow, we find the court of appeal erred in disturbing the district court's judgment, and therefore reinstate the district court's judgment in its entirety.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This litigation arises from a slip and fall incident which occurred at the home of Dorles Snook. On the day of the incident, Ms. Snook was doing some work inside the home, while her live-in boyfriend, Don Eisenhardt, was working outside. After Mr. Eisenhardt finished his work, he went inside the house and took a bath. While Mr. Eisenhardt was taking his bath, Ms. Snook attempted to carry a full trash bag out

of the house. As she did so, the bag broke open and its contents, including eggs and other trash, spilled onto the front steps of the home. Ms. Snook picked up what she could, and then sprayed the steps with a garden hose to remove any remaining residue. In the meantime, Mr. Eisenhardt finished his bath, dressed and prepared to go to the store. He exited the front door of the home with a soda in one hand and his wallet in the other hand. As he attempted to proceed down the front steps, he slipped and fell, sustaining injury to his finger and lower back. Subsequently, Mr. Eisenhardt filed the instant personal injury suit against Ms. Snook and her homeowners' insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("State Farm"). In his petition, Mr. Eisenhardt alleged that Ms. Snook failed to warn him of the dangers caused by the wet steps, and that the steps were unreasonably dangerous because they were wet. The matter proceeded to a bench trial. The parties stipulated to the admission of certain evidence, including Mr. Eisenhardt's medical records and the insurance coverage under State Farm's policy. At trial, both Ms. Snook and Mr. Eisenhardt testified. Ms. Snook testified no other accidents had occurred on the steps during her thirty years of living in the home. Ms. Snook stated that on the day of the accident, she attempted to take the trash out, but the bag broke on the step, leaving a slick film of eggs and squash. Ms. Snook detailed her cleaning of the steps by sweeping them and then spraying them off with

2

water. She believed the steps were clean, but noticed some residue remaining after Mr. Eisenhardt fell. On further examination, Ms. Snook admitted that she had not mentioned the remaining residue when she gave a statement to State Farm shortly after Mr. Eisenhardt's accident. Ms. Snook also admitted that she and Mr. Eisenhardt were romantically involved at one time. She denied that Mr. Eisenhardt had a drinking problem, and further denied any recollection of a domestic dispute after the accident in which she reported that Mr. Eisenhardt had been drinking. Ms. Snook confirmed that she claimed Mr. Eisenhardt as a dependent for tax purposes, because he did not earn enough to file a tax return. Mr. Eisenhardt testified that he had a pre-existing back injury, and that at the time of this accident, he earned approximately $400 per week doing automobile mechanic work. He stated that at the time of the accident, he exited the home with a soda in one hand and his wallet in the other hand, and that he slipped on the slick steps after crossing the entire porch and attempting to step down. After the accident, he first noticed that the steps were wet, and he also felt the residue. Mr. Eisenhardt explained that he hurt his right hand and lower back, and attempted to go to the emergency room on the date of the accident. He found the hospital emergency room was too crowded at that time, and he returned the next day. Mr. Eisenhardt was treated for several months for low back pain and a fracture to his right hand. He complained of continued weakness and pain in his hand, and pain in his lower back. On cross-examination, Mr. Eisenhardt admitted to not reporting in his deposition the

3

initial emergency room treatment on the day after the accident. He further admitted to having a criminal history, including recently pleading guilty to driving with switched plates and driving without a license. He acknowledged he had not filed a tax return or reported any income for at least fifteen years. At the conclusion of trial, the district court entered a judgment for defendants, dismissing Mr. Eisenhardt's claim for damages. In oral reasons for judgment, the district court stated: Aside from the credibility issues that I don't think it's necessary to get into, I do think that he was probably injured, probably fell, but we just don't live in a perfect world. And just because somebody gets hurt that doesn't mean that somebody gets paid a big chunk of money. That's just the way it is. Now when you go into a grocery store the standards are a little bit higher, and the reason for that is because the grocery stores have on, and stores in general, have on display items that they want you to purchase. So they draw your attention intentionally to those items on the shelf and the customers are in there and they're not necessarily looking down at their feet. But all of us have to look where we're going. I mean you learn that when you're two years old and walking that you have got to watch where you're going. And he was not looking where he was going. She had washed down the steps. He should have seen the water and known that there was a hazard. I almost slipped down the other day when it was raining at my house[,] that I've lived all my life practically in[,] on some steps that were wet. Whose fault was it? It was my fault. I wasn't careful enough. I knew it was wet, could look and see that it was wet, and I wasn't careful enough. If I would have fallen it would have been my fault. You have to watch where you're going. And based on that I just do not think that liability
Download 2008-C-1287 DON L. EISENHARDT v. DORLES SNOOK AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY

Louisiana Law

Louisiana State Laws
Louisiana Tax
Louisiana Labor Laws
Louisiana Agencies
    > Louisiana DMV

Comments

Tips