Firm Successfully Defends Hotel Owner

Firm Successfully Defends Hotel Owner in Personal Injury Case Filed by a Hotel Guest

On January 22, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a June 28, 2017 summary judgment granted by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in favor of a hotel owner in a personal injury case filed by a hotel guest. The guest claimed in his lawsuit that he fractured his wrist in 2015 when he stepped on a hose that was obstructing a wet, slippery walkway. He underwent right wrist surgery shortly after his alleged accident.

The patron testified that as he walked on a brick sidewalk on the hotel property while it was drizzling, his feet began to slide, and he “became very frightened that [he] would fall, so [he] saw a hose on the ground and mistakenly thought it would be less slippery of a surface.” The guest intentionally stepped on the hose in order to stabilize his footing and slipped and fell, breaking his wrist. The guest presented no evidence to establish that the hose obstructed the walkway.

The Court held that the guest could not establish the first element of the Louisiana Merchant Statute - that the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm - because the wet walkway and the hose were open and obvious. Citing Eisenhardt v. Snook, 8 So.3d 541, 544 (La. 2009), the Court stated that a “landowner is not liable for an injury which results from a condition which should have been observed by the individual in the exercise of reasonable care, or which was as obvious to the visitor as it was to the landowner.” The Court rejected the guest’s contention that Louisiana law requires evidence of others’ awareness of the defect in order to establish that the condition is open and obvious to all. Based on the guest’s testimony regarding his observation of the hose, his sketch of the hose and surrounding area, and evidence of sufficient lighting in the area, the Court was persuaded that there was no fact issue with respect to whether the hose was open and obvious.

Since the guest was unable to prove the first element of the Merchant Statute, an essential element of his claim, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment.

Link to case