You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Guy v. Howard Hughes Corp.

Citation: 262 So. 3d 327Docket: NO. 2018-CA-0413

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 18, 2018; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, Plaintiffs-Appellants, including Karen Guy, appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees, which dismissed claims related to injuries sustained by Ms. Guy when a tent collapsed during a rainstorm. The Appellants contended that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning the Defendants' negligence in securing the tents and the inappropriate application of the force majeure doctrine. The initial petition for damages was filed against Riverwalk Marketplace, L.L.C., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and later amended to include Scurlock Rentals, L.L.C., and Western Heritage Insurance Company. The Defendants sought summary judgment claiming immunity under force majeure, citing expert witness depositions. However, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding that the Appellants had provided sufficient expert testimony to demonstrate that the weather event was not extraordinary and that negligence could have contributed to the incident. The court emphasized that human negligence could invalidate a force majeure defense, remanding the case for further proceedings to address these factual disputes.

Legal Issues Addressed

Burden of Proof in Summary Judgment

Application: The moving party must demonstrate the lack of factual support for essential elements of the opposing party's claim, shifting the burden to the opposing party to show a genuine issue of material fact.

Reasoning: The moving party initially bears the burden of proof, but if they will not carry that burden at trial, they need only demonstrate the lack of factual support for essential elements of the opposing party's claim.

Force Majeure Defense

Application: For the force majeure defense to apply, the injury must be caused exclusively by natural events without any human intervention, and no negligence on the part of the defendant should contribute.

Reasoning: For this defense to be valid, the injury must result exclusively from natural causes without any human intervention, and there must be no negligence on the part of the defendant contributing to the incident.

Impact of Human Negligence on Force Majeure

Application: Human negligence negates the force majeure defense, and liability may arise if actions or omissions alongside a natural event cause harm.

Reasoning: The force majeure defense is not absolute and does not apply when human error contributes to the loss, as established in Saden v. Kirby.

Summary Judgment Standards

Application: The appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo, ensuring there is no genuine issue of material fact and using the same criteria as the trial court.

Reasoning: The standard for summary judgment requires that there be no genuine issue of material fact, and this appellate review is conducted de novo, using the same criteria as the trial court.