Preview:

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 95-C-1466 consolidated with No. 95-C-1487 EARL GARLAND PITRE, JR., ET AL. versus LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL

VICTORY, Justice. This personal injury case based upon alleged negligence arises out of a sledding accident that occurred on the campus of Louisiana Tech University ("Tech") during a rare winter ice and snow storm. The plaintiff, Earl Garland Pitre, Jr., sustained serious spinal injuries and paralysis when the plastic garbage can lid that he was sledding upon collided with the concrete base of a light pole located in a campus parking lot. We granted writs to examine whether Tech had a duty to warn of the associated risks and/or to protect against injury. Under the circumstances, we find that Tech had no duty since the light pole was obvious and apparent and the risks of colliding with it while sledding are known to everyone. FACTS In early January of 1988 a winter storm was forecast for northeast Louisiana. In anticipation of the storm, the Housing Department at Tech distributed the following bulletin to all of its dormitory residents 1: WINTER STORMS AND LOUISIANA TECH The Housing Office would like to pass on to each resident some helpful information all students should find beneficial during winter storm conditions on campus.

1

Hereinafter referred to as the "Winter Storms Bulletin."

We encourage all students to dress warmly when ice or snow is on the ground. We discourage hypothermia, frostbite, etc., all realities during winter storms, but not pleasant realities. We encourage snowmen, sledding, etc., in proper areas and using good judgement. We discourage sledding down the hills along Tech Drive into the path of oncoming cars -- not good judgement -nor is being dragged behind a moving vehicle considered using good judgement. Fifteen reported personal injuries were associated with such behavior during the last snow. We encourage students to get outdoors and enjoy these rare occasions on Tech Campus when everything is blanketed in white. We discourage rowdy and disruptive behavior such as throwing snow/ice balls at passing cars and dorm windows. We had numerous broken car windshields and residence hall windows during our last snow - damages which cost all students. We encourage groups of students or even entire halls to walk around the campus and surrounding area to view the beauty and spectacle. We discourage students driving during this time. Our accident rate on campus was up several hundred percent during our last snow. We encourage students to be particularly aware of the special conditions existing during winter storms - e.g., hazardous driving conditions; certain streets and roads closed due to icy conditions; and ice on steps and sidewalks making footing precarious. We discourage any and all behavior unbecoming of a college student -In addition we encourage students who must drive or walk during winter storm conditions to note the following tips: How to Go in Snow Skids - Take your foot off the gas; do not brake. For rear-wheel skids, turn the steering wheel in the same direction as the skid. For front-wheel skids, do not turn the steering wheel until traction is regained and you regain control. Stopping Suddenly - Slow gradually by pumping the brakes several times; do not brake sharply. Stuck in Snow - Clear snow from around all tires and find something to help traction. It's good to carry traction mats or some wire mesh for this purpose. Or you can use dry sand, or ashes. Icy Hills - Going up: maintain a steady speed. If wheels begin to spin, ease up on the gas pedal, then reaccelerate slowly. Going down: brake gently to reduce speed. 2

Using Snow Tires and Chains - Keep snow tires inflated to the recommended maximum. For best results, place snow tires or chains on all four wheels. When Walking - Use warm shoes or boots which repel water and have good grips/soles. (Underline in original. Bold added.) As predicted, a rare winter storm did occur on January 6-7, 1988. The entire Tech campus was covered with ice and snow, and classes scheduled for January 7 were canceled. Because of the conditions, many of the 3,406 students residing in Tech dormitories were unable to leave the campus. A number of these students took advantage of the unique opportunity by engaging in sledding, an infrequent activity on Tech's campus and for most Louisiana residents. Among those was 20-year-old Earl Garland Pitre, Jr. ("Pitre"), a native of Lake Charles, Louisiana, who was in his third year at Tech. On the evening of January 7, 1988, Pitre walked from his room at Neilson Dormitory through a parking lot between the Thomas Assembly Center and the Joseph Aillet Football Stadium to attend a Tech basketball game at the Assembly Center. When the game ended at approximately 9:00 p.m., Pitre walked back through the same parking lot to his room and made a few telephone calls. After visiting with fellow dormitory resident, Todd Efird, the two walked back to the Assembly Center where they gathered to sled with friends, Paul McCarver, Mark White and David White. The Assembly Center is located on a hill near the football stadium. At the east and northeast entrances of the Assembly Center, the hill (approximately 15 feet high and 85 feet long from its crest to its base) slopes into the stadium parking lot.2 At the other end of the parking lot is the football stadium, which is surrounded by a road and is approximately 143 feet from the base of the hill. Several light poles, spaced about

2

This is the same parking lot which Pitre walked through to get to and from the Assembly Center.

3

150 feet apart, are located throughout the parking lot. The poles are secured with concrete bases approximately 1 foot 10 inches in height and 2 feet in diameter. When Pitre arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m., there were several students sledding down the hill into the stadium parking lot using various devices, including, cardboard, a toilet seat, plastic advertising signs, food trays, baking trays, part of a rocking chair, and homemade sleds. Initially, Pitre made three trips down the hill on a piece of cardboard. He then began sledding on a large plastic garbage can lid approximately five to six feet wide, which had been brought from off-campus. The lid was more desirable because it held up to four riders, and went faster and farther than any of the other devices. On several occasions the lid traveled as far as the stadium, over 224 feet. This tragic accident occurred during Pitre's eighth trip down the hill on the lid. Pitre mounted the lid with three other individuals, Allyson Hines, Johanna Broussard and John Dumond. These riders (including Pitre) described their assumed positions as lying side-by-side on their backs with their feet facing uphill and their heads facing downhill.3 The lid was then pushed from the top of the hill by Paul McCarver. As it proceeded down the hill into the football stadium parking lot, the lid collided with the concrete base of one of the light poles. As a result, Pitre sustained head and back injuries resulting in permanent paralysis from the mid-chest down.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

One witness to the accident, Arla Caldwell, described the riders' positions differently. She recalled them sitting one behind the other with each rider straddling the rider in front of him or her. However, her description was consistent with that of the riders as she also recalled that they traveled with their feet facing uphill (i.e., backwards).

3

4

On December 30, 1988, Pitre and his parents, Earl G. Pitre, Sr. and Joan Pitre, filed suit against Tech and the State of Louisiana. They alleged that Tech was negligent in the following respects: (1) encouraging students, by way of the Winter Storms Bulletin, to engage in sledding activities in areas which Tech knew or should have known were hazardous; (2) failing to erect cushions around solid objects to prevent sledding injuries; (3) failing to warn students of the hazards which might be encountered in the area in which sledding took place; and (4) failing to prohibit sledding in the area where the accident occurred. On November 28, 1990, the defendants moved for summary judgment claiming that Tech had no duty to Pitre. On December 5, 1990, the plaintiffs also moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the danger of striking a fixed object while sledding was obvious and apparent. Accordingly, the trial court held that Tech had no duty to warn, that the Winter Storms Bulletin did not create an affirmative duty, and that there was no duty to place cushions around the light poles. On appeal, a narrow majority of the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 596 So.2d 1324 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1991).4 According to the court of appeal, Tech's general duty as a landowner, to discover unreasonably dangerous conditions or uses of its premises and to either correct or warn of their existence, was heightened by its relationship with Pitre as a dormitory resident and student. Relying upon Fox v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, 576 So.2d 978 (La. 1991), the court of appeal acknowledged that adult students must be held responsible for their own conduct, and

Initially, the summary judgment was affirmed by Judges Sexton and Lindsay, with Judge Brown dissenting. On rehearing, it was reversed by Judges Norris, Brown and Stewart, with Judges Sexton and Lindsay dissenting.

4

5

that Tech could not practically control all on-campus activities. However, the court of appeal concluded that Tech could not "abandon all efforts to insure the physical safety of its students" because "parents, students and the general community have some expectations that reasonable care will be exercised to protect students from foreseeable harm." Citing Socorro v. City of New Orleans, 579 So.2d 931 (La. 1991), the court of appeal also reasoned that it was not proper to focus solely upon Pitre's knowledge and conduct when examining whether Tech had a duty. The court of appeal found that Tech knew that the students would be using this hill for sledding; that Tech was aware, through the campus Police Department which had stopped sledding on campus hills, of the specific danger presented by the light poles; and that through the Winter Storms Bulletin, Tech "encouraged" Pitre, a 20year-old student without prior sledding experience, to undertake the risk. According to the court of appeal, these circumstances created "an illusion of safety" which removed or lessened Pitre's reality of the actual danger, and gave Tech the duty to protect or warn against this unreasonably dangerous activity.5 The defendants requested review of the court of appeal's decision, which this Court denied, stating: "Review of the court of appeal's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment is not warranted at this state of the proceeding." Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 604 So.2d 998 (La. 1992). After trial on the merits, the trial court issued a lengthy opinion wherein it again found that Tech owed no duty to Pitre. On appeal, the trial court's decision was reversed. Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University, 26388 (La. App. 2d Cir. 5/10/95); 655 So.2d 659 (Hightower, J., dissenting). The court of appeal refused to address the duty issue, finding that its prior decision was law-of-the-case and that the trial court legally
In so finding, the court of appeal did not sustain the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, but merely reversed the trial court's ruling sustaining the defendants' motion for summary judgment
5

6

erred by revisiting the duty issue on remand. The court of appeal found that the duty issue became final when this Court denied writs. Upon considering the elements of breach and causation, the court of appeal concluded that Pitre was 75% at fault in causing the accident. Pitre was awarded the following damages, subject to reduction: $2,500,000.00 in general damages; $128,770.87 in past medical expenses; and $1,163,831.00 in future medical expenses. Pitre's parents were each awarded $35,000.00 (subject to reduction) for loss of consortium. We granted the plaintiffs' and the defendants' respective applications for writs of certiorari. Under the facts presented, we find that sledding is not inherently dangerous, the light pole was patently obvious and apparent to all, and that the hazards of colliding with fixed objects while sledding are well-known. As such, the light pole did not present an unreasonably dangerous condition, and Tech had no duty to warn of the condition or protect against the obvious risks associated with sledding down a hill in the direction of a light pole.6 LAW OF THE CASE Preliminarily, we observe that the principle of law-of-the-case has no bearing upon our decision today. Under this doctrine, courts of appeal generally refuse to reconsider their own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case. However, the law-of-the-case principle is not applied to prevent a higher court from examining the correctness of the ruling of an intermediate appellate court. Day v. CampbellGrosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 260 La. 325, 256 So.2d 105, 107 (1971). This Court has not previously decided any of the issues presented, including whether Tech owed a duty to Pitre. The Court's denial of the defendants' request for

This finding renders the plaintiffs' assignments of error relating to comparative fault and damages moot. Our decision also moots the issues raised in the defendants' supplemental brief regarding the revival of La. R.S. 13:5106 and 5112 by the 1995 amendment to La. Const. art. XII,

Download 95-C-1466.pdf

Louisiana Law