Preview:

Supreme Court of Louisiana
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NEWS RELEASE #016

The Opinions handed down on the 15th day of March, 2011, are as follows:

PER CURIAM: 2010-C -1683 JEANINE PRYOR v. IBERIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD (Parish of Iberia) For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal reversing the district court's judgment is reversed. The district court's judgment dismissing plaintiff's suit with prejudice is reinstated. KIMBALL, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons. JOHNSON, J., dissents. KNOLL, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

.

3/15/11
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2010-C-1683 JEANINE PRYOR VERSUS IBERIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF IBERIA PER CURIAM 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.

UNDERLYING FACTS 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

Plaintiff had a host of physical impairments prior to the accident. In 2000, she underwent ankle surgery, and lumbar surgery and a total left hip replacement in 2003. In February 2004, her doctor declared her to be mobility impaired. She walked with an abnormal gait, and used a cane.

1

sit, the seating consists of uniform and symmetrical wood board seats with concrete 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 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

2

court. At the conclusion of trial, the district court rendered judgment in favor of the 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.

DISCUSSION 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. 1st 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

3

obvious hazard. If the facts of a particular case show that the complained-of 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 determining whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm, the trier of fact must balance the gravity and risk of harm against the individual and societal rights and obligations, the social utility, and the cost and feasibility of repair. Reed, 97-1174 at p. 5, 708 So. 2d at 365; Boyle v. Board of Supervisors, 96-1158 (La. 1/14/97), 685 So. 2d 1080, 1083; Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So. 2d 1146, 1149 (La. 1983); Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., 249 So. 2d 133 (La. 1971). In determining whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous, courts have adopted a risk-utility balancing test. This test encompasses four factors: (1) the utility of the thing; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, which includes the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiffs' activities in terms of its social utility, or whether it is dangerous by nature. Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 95-1466 (La. 5/10/96), 673 So. 2d 585, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1007 (1996). For purposes of the first factor, it is undisputed that the bleachers serve a social utility purpose by providing seating for patrons of the stadium. However, in a brief to this court, plaintiff argues we should focus on the hazard which caused her injury

4



Download 2010-C-1683 JEANINE PRYOR v. IBERIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.pdf

Louisiana Law