For a plaintiff to succeed in a civil case, he or she must show that there are facts that can prove his or her claim. If there are no such facts, then he or she cannot prove his claim, thus rendering a trial unnecessary. In cases where the plaintiff does not have facts to support his or her claim, the opposing party often files a motion for summary judgment in order to dismiss the claim.
Patricia Bowen worked at the Earl K. Long Medical Center (“EKL”) located in Baton Rouge. On October 10, 2012, Bowen suffered serious injuries at work when the elevator she used dropped and went up abruptly as she exited it. On October 9, 2013, Bowen filed a lawsuit against EKL, alleging that EKL was negligent for not performing proper maintenance or maintaining preventive maintenance on its elevators.
In 2015, however, EKL filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Bowen could not show that it had prior notice of the alleged defect in the elevator, that the alleged defect presented an unreasonable risk of harm, and that it had acted unreasonably. Around two years later, the Trial Court granted EKL’s motion for summary judgment. It found that though there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding a defect in the elevator, it held that Bowen was unable to show evidence of EKL having prior notice of the alleged defect. Bowen appealed, claiming that the Trial Court erred in granting EKL’s motion because EKL failed to comply with pending discovery.
According to La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 966A(3), a trial court shall grant a party’s motion for summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For a party to succeed on its motion for summary judgment, it must at least show that the adverse party does not have factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim. If the moving party is able to show this, the adverse party must provide facts to support that there is a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. Pro. art. 966D(1). There is a genuine issue of material fact if there is a fact in the case in which reasonable persons can disagree about its applicability in deciding the case in one way or another. Hines v. Garrett, 876 So. 2d 764, 765 (La. 2004).
Using this standard, the Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to grant EKL’s motion for summary judgment. Addressing Bowen’s claim that the Trial Court erred because it granted summary judgment while there was pending discovery, the Appellate Court stated that there is no absolute right to delay action on a motion for summary judgment until discovery is completed. In fact, as long as the parties are given a fair opportunity to present their claim, there is no reason why a trial cannot grant summary judgment despite pending discovery if there is no genuine issue of fact. The Appellate Court noted that the Trial Court gave Bowen ample opportunity for discovery and that Bowen did not utilize the opportunity by not conducting depositions when she had plenty of time to do so. Thus, the Appellate Court affirmed the motion for summary judgment.
Despite Bowen’s efforts to reverse the Trial Court’s decision at the appellate level, she failed because she could not show that there was a genuine issue of material fact. It did not matter whether there was pending discovery. As long as the Trial Court can find that there is no genuine issue of material fact at some point in trial, it does not have to prolong the trial needlessly. Indeed, it would not make sense if Bowen had a hopeless case, but could prolong the trial by waiting for her discovery to be completed.
Additional Sources: Bowen v. State of Louisiana
Written by Berniard Law Firm Blog Writer: Peter Lee
Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Summary Judgment: Should Summary Judgments Be Used in Cases Against Public Entities for Slip and Falls?