Edmison v. Caesars Entertainment Co.

Citations: 177 F. Supp. 3d 972; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47173; 2016 WL 1383645Docket: CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1521

Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana; April 7, 2016; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Two motions for summary judgment were filed by Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc. and Jazz Casino Company, LLC, and Schindler Elevator Corporation regarding a personal injury lawsuit brought by Lee Edmison, who fell down an escalator at Harrah’s Casino in New Orleans on February 12, 2015. The court granted both motions.

Background details reveal that Edmison fell shortly after stepping onto the escalator, losing his balance and tumbling headfirst. His wife, Rosemary Edmison, was present but was several steps behind. Following the incident, Edmison was hospitalized with severe injuries, including a skull fracture and traumatic brain injury, and a blood test indicated a high blood alcohol content of 0.244, significantly above the legal driving limit.

Both Caesars and Schindler argued that the escalator was compliant with safety codes and that no evidence indicated it was unreasonably dangerous or that causation linked their actions to Edmison's fall. Caesars further claimed Edmison's alcohol consumption was the cause of the fall. Conversely, the plaintiffs contended that the lack of modern safety features on the escalator contributed to the incident. They employed liability expert Joseph Stabler, who identified the absence of step demarcation lines and other features as factors leading to Edmison's injuries, arguing that the determination of the escalator's danger and causation should be left to a jury.

Summary judgment is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when there is no genuine dispute over any material fact, allowing the moving party to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine dispute exists only if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party, and mere allegations of a factual dispute do not suffice to oppose a properly supported motion. The non-moving party must present competent evidence, such as affidavits or depositions; hearsay and unsworn documents are insufficient. The court must view facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

The applicable law is Louisiana law, with plaintiffs' claims against Caesars under premises liability as per Civil Code articles 2317 and 2322, and a general negligence claim against Schindler under article 2315. Article 2317 establishes liability for damage caused by things in one’s custody, while article 2322 holds building owners accountable for damages from building defects or neglect, contingent upon proving knowledge of the defect and failure to exercise reasonable care.

To establish a claim against a building owner, five elements must be demonstrated: ownership of the building, knowledge of the defect, preventability of damage through reasonable care, failure to exercise such care, and causation. The Louisiana Supreme Court employs a duty-risk analysis to assess negligence claims, focusing on whether a duty was owed, breached, and whether that breach caused the plaintiff's harm. The determination of duty owed is a legal question for the court.

The determination of whether a duty is breached is fundamentally a factual question for the fact-finder, contingent upon the prior establishment of a duty by the Court. At the summary judgment stage, the legal question of whether a duty exists must be resolved first, followed by an examination of any material factual disputes regarding a breach. Louisiana jurisprudence complicates this framework by intertwining the legal determination of duty with the factual assessment of breach. Specifically, in premises liability claims, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a defect in a building is "unreasonably dangerous," which involves a complex "risk-utility" analysis comprising four factors: the utility of the condition, the likelihood and magnitude of harm, the cost of harm prevention, and the nature of the plaintiff's activities. The confusion arises in whether this analysis pertains to the existence of a duty or the breach of a duty. The Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling in Broussard v. State ex. Rel. Office of State Buildings highlights this issue, affirming that the question of whether a defect is unreasonably dangerous is a mixed question of law and fact, suitable for jury determination. The court clarified that the second factor of the risk-utility test, which assesses the obviousness of a defect, relates to whether a duty is owed, noting that generally, no duty exists for open and obvious hazards. The court acknowledged previous conflations of duty and breach elements and established that the risk-utility analysis is better suited for evaluating breach rather than duty. Consequently, Broussard establishes several paradoxical principles: determining duty is a legal question for the Court; no duty exists for open and obvious defects; the determination of open and obvious defects relies on the risk-utility test; the test assesses whether a defect is unreasonably dangerous; and this assessment relates to the factual determination of breach.

One cannot determine whether a legal duty exists without first establishing whether that duty was breached. Louisiana premises liability law lacks clarity, but the Louisiana Supreme Court provided guidance in Allen v. Lockwood, clarifying that the Broussard case should not be interpreted as precluding summary judgment in premises liability cases. The court asserted that the question of whether a defect is "unreasonably dangerous" can lead to summary judgment when the defect is open and obvious. In Allen, the Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for a church when the alleged defect, an unpaved grassy parking area, was deemed open and obvious. Similarly, in Bufkin v. Felipe’s Louisiana, the court reversed a district court ruling, holding that a dumpster obstructing vision was an open and obvious hazard, and therefore, the defendant owed no duty to warn an injured plaintiff. 

In the current case, the court intends to logically assess whether Caesars owed a duty to Edmison by examining if the alleged defect was open and obvious. Louisiana law imposes a heightened duty of care on escalator owners, akin to common carriers, requiring them to identify and address unreasonably dangerous conditions. However, this heightened duty does not extend to open and obvious defects. A hazard is considered open and obvious if it is apparent to anyone who may encounter it, focusing on the collective knowledge of potential users rather than the specific knowledge of the individual victim. The plaintiffs argue that the escalator's lack of safety features, specifically the absence of step demarcation lines, constitutes a defect that is not open and obvious, as these lines help riders discern the separation between steps.

Plaintiffs argue that the escalator's lack of yellow demarcation lines renders its steps not open and obvious, but the Court finds this interpretation incorrect. The escalator’s steps, which inherently separate as part of normal operation, do not constitute the complained-of condition; the actual concern is the absence of safety features that could mitigate falling risks. The Court concludes that the danger of using an escalator without such features is indeed open and obvious, as individuals of ordinary prudence are expected to be aware of the moving steps. Even under a heightened duty of care, Caesars is not liable for all injuries associated with inherent risks of using its facilities.

The Court also determines that the escalator was not unreasonably dangerous, as it complied with safety codes, was functioning correctly at the time, and had a low incidence of accidents—only three out of approximately 600,000 users in six months. The high utility of escalators in modern infrastructure further supports this conclusion. The potential burden of requiring extensive safety features could be significant, creating a precedent for exorbitant costs across Caesars’ operations. Additionally, the plaintiffs' own heavy alcohol consumption significantly contributed to the risk, with limited social utility in their actions preceding the incident. Consequently, Caesars’ motion for summary judgment is granted. Schindler Elevator Corporation also seeks summary judgment regarding the negligence claim under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315, necessitating the application of the state's "duty-risk" analysis.

The elements of a negligence claim differ from those of a premises liability claim. To prove negligence in Louisiana, plaintiffs must establish five elements: 1) the defendant had a duty to adhere to a specific standard of care; 2) the defendant failed to meet that standard; 3) the defendant’s failure was a cause-in-fact of the injuries; 4) the failure was a legal cause of the injuries; and 5) actual damages occurred. In this case, Schindler Elevator Corporation is found to owe a duty of reasonable care in maintaining the escalator, as agreed by the parties. However, Schindler asserts there is no evidence of a breach, highlighting that the escalator met safety codes and was functioning properly at the time of the incident. The plaintiffs argue that Schindler should have recommended safety upgrades, specifically step demarcation lines required for escalators installed post-2002, but the escalator in question was installed in 2000 and did not require them.

The Court determines that Schindler did not breach its duty of care. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to establish causation, as they could not prove that the proposed safety features would have prevented the accident involving Mr. Edmison, who was heavily intoxicated and could not recall the fall. The concept of legal cause, or the scope of duty, hinges on whether the harm is associated with the defendant's conduct. The Court concludes that it is unreasonable to expect Schindler to prevent a fall by a highly intoxicated individual on a compliant escalator.

As a result, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Schindler and Caesars Entertainment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs acknowledge that escalators are commonly used and that falls are frequent accidents, yet they provide an affidavit from another individual who fell under similar circumstances, admitting to intoxication. The Court considers various factors in assessing risk, including the utility of the condition, likelihood and magnitude of harm, costs of prevention, and the nature of the plaintiff’s activities.