Louisiana Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
In a recent decision by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, the court affirmed a trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Stanley Access Technologies LLC (Stanley) in a personal injury case brought by Vera Bernard. The case stemmed from an incident where Ms. Bernard allegedly sustained injuries after striking a revolving door at the Lafayette Airport.
Ms. Bernard filed a lawsuit alleging that the revolving door, installed by Stanley, came to an abrupt halt, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. She claimed Stanley was negligent in the installation, maintenance, repair, and employee training related to the door.
Stanley filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it had no duty to Ms. Bernard as the responsibility for daily inspection and maintenance of the doors rested with the Lafayette Airport. They also argued that there was no evidence of the door malfunctioning.
Ms. Bernard opposed the motion, presenting evidence suggesting Stanley’s ongoing involvement in the door’s maintenance and training of airport personnel. She also pointed to a service call made after the accident as evidence of a potential malfunction.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Stanley, finding that the duty to inspect the doors rested with the airport and that there was no evidence of a door malfunction or inadequate training.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s decision. It agreed that Stanley did not owe a duty to Ms. Bernard once the doors were certified as properly installed. The court emphasized that the responsibility for notifying Stanley of any malfunctions lay with the Lafayette Airport.
The court also rejected Ms. Bernard’s argument that circumstantial evidence pointed to a door malfunction. It found that the evidence presented did not establish any connection between Stanley’s alleged duties and the claimed malfunction. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support Ms. Bernard’s claim of inadequate warning signs on the doors.
The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment in favor of Stanley, concluding that Ms. Bernard failed to produce evidence demonstrating Stanley’s duty or a breach of that duty. The court emphasized the importance of establishing a duty and a causal link between the alleged breach and the injuries sustained.
This case serves as a reminder that in personal injury cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the defendant’s duty, breach of that duty, and causation. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Additional Sources: VERA BERNARD VERSUS ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., ET AL
Written by Berniard Law Firm
Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Injuries at Businesses: Door Closing Mechanism Causes Trip and Fall, Who is Liable? and When a Slip and Fall Isn’t Just an Accident: Understanding Merchant Liability