Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 11, 2001; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed by Rhodes Funeral Home and its liability insurer, Lafayette Insurance Company, following a trial court ruling in favor of Ms. Dora Brisbon, who sustained injuries from a fall on loose carpet on the entrance steps of the funeral home. The incident occurred on August 2, 1997, during a funeral when Ms. Brisbon, then 80 years old, tripped and fell, resulting in injuries to various parts of her body. The trial court found Rhodes Funeral Home 100% liable and awarded Ms. Brisbon a total of $14,862.27 for general and medical damages.
Key testimony included Ms. Brisbon's account of her fall, where she described her foot getting caught in the carpet, leading to her tumbling down the stairs. After the fall, bystanders offered assistance, and she ultimately went to the emergency room with her grandson. During cross-examination, she acknowledged not using the handrail or observing the stairs before her fall and described the carpet issue as a minor 'bunch.'
Loretta Carter, a witness present at the funeral, testified that she observed Ms. Brisbon as she fell but could not confirm if all the steps were carpeted, only recalling carpet on the last step. The trial court's judgment was affirmed, maintaining the defendants' liability for Ms. Brisbon's injuries.
Ms. Carter recalled her experience on the stairs where Ms. Brisbon fell, noting that she almost fell herself due to the carpet, which she described as uneven, causing her foot to get caught. During cross-examination, she could not recall if there was carpet above the last step. Ms. Wilson, who attended the same funeral and witnessed Ms. Brisbon’s fall, also experienced a near fall on the stairs. She attributed her near fall to the stairs not being level and the thick carpet obscuring the elevation change. While she did not remember if the stairs were carpeted, she confirmed carpet was present at the bottom. On cross-examination, she mentioned using the handrail while descending.
Mr. Rhodes, the President of Rhodes Funeral Home, stated that the steps were marble/terrazzo and had never been carpeted, highlighting that the photographs of the steps were taken approximately eleven days after the incident. Ms. Astorga, the facility manager, backed Mr. Rhodes' assertion that there was never carpet on the steps and noted her responsibility for housekeeping in that area. Initially unaware of the incident until after the lawsuit, she later acknowledged knowledge of it prior to litigation, attributing her initial confusion to misunderstanding. She denied the steps were uneven, explaining that they had conducted checks post-flood, including work by the Abry Brothers to ensure stability. She confirmed that the building underwent mudjacking twenty years ago due to a flood, which also prompted carpet replacement in the facility.
Gloria Harness, a former employee of Rhodes with sixteen years of experience as a limousine driver, testified that the stairs at the Washington Avenue location were never carpeted; only the area beneath the stairs had carpet. On the day of Ms. Brisbon's fall, she was at the front desk and did not witness the incident but heard a commotion and saw Nelson Duplessis assist Ms. Brisbon after her fall. After the incident, Ms. Harness inspected the stairs and found them to be 'normal.'
Nelson Duplessis, a former chauffeur at Rhodes for eleven years, confirmed that the stairs lacked carpet and vaguely remembered the fall. He assisted Ms. Brisbon, who declined medical help and stated she tripped over her own feet. Duplessis noted that he had checked the stairs, which are usually cleaned before services, and saw nothing that might have caused a fall. He acknowledged that an accident report was prepared by Ms. Harness and mentioned that the carpet in the location had been replaced at an unspecified time. He could not identify who took photographs of the stairs or when they were taken.
On legal matters, Rhodes and Lafayette’s counsel contended that the trial court erred in finding them liable, arguing that Ms. Brisbon failed to prove how long any alleged carpet defect existed and maintaining that no carpet was present on the steps where she fell. Conversely, Ms. Brisbon’s counsel argued the trial court acted within its discretion in holding Rhodes and Lafayette liable for creating an unreasonably dangerous condition. The reviewing court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing the importance of witness credibility and the discretion of the fact finder in determining liability.
In reviewing conflicting testimonies, appellate courts typically defer to the trial court's evaluations of credibility and factual inferences, even if they may reach different conclusions. In this case, three witnesses testified that the steps were carpeted, while four others claimed they were not. Photographs taken eleven days after the incident showed no carpet. The trial court favored the testimonies supporting the presence of carpet and found the defendant's case unconvincing, citing insufficient authentication of the photographs and lack of compelling evidence that the steps were uncarpeted at the time of the accident. The key question was whether the plaintiff tripped over carpet. The trial court's decision, which concluded that the defendant did not adequately refute the plaintiff's witnesses, was deemed reasonable and upheld on appeal.
Regarding liability, while the trial court's written reasons were ambiguous on whether it applied a negligence or strict liability standard, it was determined that the defendants were liable under strict liability. The law requires property owners to maintain safe premises and be aware of potential hazards; however, mere existence of a hazard does not imply negligence unless it can be shown that the owner had adequate time to rectify the situation. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the hazard was present long enough for the defendant to address it, thus ruling out negligence. However, strict liability was established against the defendant.
In the case discussed, strict liability under Civil Code article 2817 was evaluated, requiring proof of three elements: 1) the defendant's care, custody, and control of the item causing harm, 2) a defect in that item creating an unreasonable risk of harm, and 3) the plaintiff's injuries resulting from that defect. The President of Rhodes Funeral Home confirmed ownership of the location where the incident occurred, establishing the first element. The court referenced previous rulings to assess whether Rhodes acted reasonably in maintaining the premises, specifically regarding a defect in the carpeting on the entrance stairs, which created an unreasonable risk of harm due to its potential to cause falls. The court determined that the presence of buckled carpeting significantly increased the likelihood of injury, particularly in a high-traffic area.
Causation was established through the stipulation of the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff’s medical records, which showed her injuries resulted from the fall. Thus, Rhodes was found strictly liable for Ms. Brisbon's injuries.
Regarding comparative fault, the defendants claimed Ms. Brisbon was partially at fault for not paying attention and not using handrails. However, the court sided with the plaintiff, stating the defendants did not meet their burden of proof for this affirmative defense, as established in prior case law, which requires proving that the other party's negligence was a cause of the accident.
Defendant-appellants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Brisbon's negligence was a cause-in-fact of the accident. The examination of photographs shows only three steps leading to the viewing rooms, and Ms. Brisbon's choice not to use the handrails while descending those steps is not considered negligent. The court found this argument without merit.
Regarding damages, the appellate counsel argued that the trial court's damage award was excessive and unsupported. Ms. Brisbon's counsel countered that the award did not "shock the conscious." The court referenced Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp. to clarify that appellate review focuses on whether there was an abuse of discretion by the trial judge, not on determining an appropriate award. The court concluded that the total award of $14,862.27, which included $14,000 in general damages and $862.27 for past medical expenses, was not an abuse of discretion, especially given Ms. Brisbon's documented medical treatment following the accident. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
For consistency, the plaintiff-appellee is referred to as "Ms. Brisbon" in this appeal.
