CHARLENE BLALOCK v. SHELTER GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND FRANK FLANAGAN (2023)

Having thoroughly reviewed the filings in this case, I seriously question whether plaintiff can prove that the cord over which she allegedly tripped presented an “unreasonable risk” of harm. Broussard v. State ex rel. Off of State Bldsgs., 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13), 113 So. 3d 175, 192 (“[A] defendant only has a duty to protect against unreasonable risks that are not obvious or apparent. ․”). The court of appeal only narrowly agreed with the district courts’ denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, voting 3-2 to grant rehearing and reverse the original panel's vote, highlighting the uncertainty of whether the law supports plaintiff's claims. Even more problematic and warranting our review, both lower courts ruled on this matter without consideration to this Court's recent opinion in Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc., in which the court explained “[t]he open and obvious concept asks whether the complained of condition would be apparent to any reasonable person who might encounter it” and “[i]f so, that reasonable person would avoid it, and the factor will weigh in favor of finding the condition not unreasonably dangerous.” 22-0849, p. 8 (La. 3/17/23), 359 So.3d 467, 475 (emphasis added).

Accordingly, I would grant this application, assign the case for briefing, and allow the parties to request oral argument pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 966(H).

Crichton, J. would grant and assign for briefing and assigns reasons: