Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 10, 1985; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Suits Nos. 85-CA-210 and 85-CA-446 were consolidated for trial regarding a personal injury claim by a plaintiff who suffered injuries from a slip-and-fall accident on a sidewalk at West Jefferson General Hospital. Defendants included the hospital, its liability insurer, and the Parish of Jefferson. During the trial, which took place from April 2 to April 4, 1984, the Parish’s motion for a directed verdict was granted after the plaintiff rested her case. The jury, upon deliberation, found the sidewalk defective but ruled that it was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, leading to a judgment dismissing her suit.
Upon review, it was noted that although the jury's verdict was verbally acknowledged, only a written judgment dismissing the Parish of Jefferson existed. Subsequently, a signed judgment was provided on June 6, 1985, affirming the directed verdict for the Parish and dismissing the claims against the hospital and its insurer with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a second appeal regarding this signed judgment. Both appeals were consolidated for hearing due to identical issues, facts, and assignments of error.
The case details a slip-and-fall incident involving Mrs. Rubel, who claimed her fall was caused by the defective sidewalk. After stepping off the sidewalk to allow others to pass, she twisted her ankle and fell, resulting in significant injuries and a 10% permanent partial disability. The plaintiff argues that the jury erred in finding that the sidewalk did not cause her injuries, misapplied legal standards, and failed to award appropriate damages for her disability.
Appellant relies on her own testimony, her husband’s, her treating physician Dr. Gordon Gidman, and safety expert Mr. Wilford Gallard to support her claim. However, both Mrs. Rubel and Mr. Rubel could not definitively explain how she fell. Mrs. Rubel recalled stepping off the sidewalk but could not remember if she stepped down or remained level with the street at the time of her fall. She acknowledged not looking down while walking. Her husband, Mr. Rubel, noted that he did not see her feet when she fell but described her falling in a twisted motion facing him. Following the accident, he took photographs of the area where he believed she fell.
At the time of the incident, construction was taking place on the building above, with danger signs posted, but there was no evidence of ongoing work or debris on the sidewalk. The sidewalk adjacent to a slanting curb, painted yellow for visibility, is significantly elevated at the point where Mrs. Rubel fell, though it was meant to be level with the sidewalk. This part of the sidewalk is heavily trafficked, and the assistant director of the hospital, Erie Hebert, testified that he had not noticed the raised curb before the incident.
The curbing in question was painted yellow to indicate a variation in height between the sidewalk and curb. After being informed about this difference, the hospital requested construction workers to level the area. Edward Sessum, Jr., the hospital's chief engineer, confirmed that the curbing was elevated above the sidewalk. Plaintiff's safety expert, Mr. Gallardo, reconstructed the accident through depositions and photographs, concluding that the curbing presented a tripping hazard due to its blending with the sidewalk and the misleading placement of warning signs. He identified the curb-sidewalk difference as a violation of federal safety standards and deemed it a dangerous defect. Dr. Gidman testified that the plaintiff’s injuries were consistent with falling over the raised curbing.
The jury found the curbing defective, but it was noted that mere occurrence of a fall does not constitute an unreasonable danger, as landowners are not required to maintain perfect sidewalk conditions. Previous cases have established that minor elevation differences (1 to 2 inches) are not deemed unreasonable. The appellate court emphasizes that findings of fact should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. In this case, the testimony from the witnesses did not conclusively link the raised curb to the accident, as the plaintiff only reported falling while stepping onto the sidewalk, and her husband did not witness the fall. The absence of testimony from her two friends further undermined her case.
The plaintiff argued that the jury misapplied legal standards regarding the burden of proof and circumstantial evidence. However, the trial judge provided appropriate instructions, and there was no evidence to support claims of misapplication. Consequently, the appellate court found no merit in the plaintiff's arguments and affirmed the trial court's judgment from June 6, 1985, in Suit No. 85-CA-446.
