Jenkins v. Doucet

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Jenkins v. Doucet

145 So. 3d 349, 2014 WL 2931693, 2014 La. LEXIS 1578

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 30, 2014

DocketNo. 2014-CC-0879

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 So. 3d 349 (Jenkins v. Doucet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jenkins v. Doucet, 145 So. 3d 349, 2014 WL 2931693, 2014 La. LEXIS 1578 (La. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

11 Plaintiff filed suit against various defendants, including the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge (“City/Parish”), alleging he was injured when he fell due to a crack or deviation in a sidewalk. The City/Parish moved for summary judgment. The district court denied summary judgment, and the court of appeal denied supervisory relief, with two judges dissenting. This application followed.

Our well-settled jurisprudence recognizes that not every minor defect or deviation in a sidewalk is unreasonably dangerous. See Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 11-0898 (La.1/24/12), 85 So.3d 593.

In the instant case, the deviation in the sidewalk (approximately one to three inches) was relatively small. The deviation was typical of other cracks in the sidewalk caused by tree roots, which are typical in older neighborhoods. The City-Parish produced evidence that it received no complaints about the deviation, nor had there been any prior accidents involving the deviation in over twenty-five years. Plaintiff admitted he was not keeping a [350]*350proper look-out at the time of the fall. Other than a single affidavit (which appears largely conclusory in nature), plaintiff produced no contrary evidence. Under these circumstances, we find the City/Parish established it is entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and summary judgment is granted in favor of the City/Parish.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

11 Plaintiff filed suit against various defendants, including the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge (“City/Parish”), alleging he was injured when he fell due to a crack or deviation in a sidewalk. The City/Parish moved for summary judgment. The district court denied summary judgment, and the court of appeal denied supervisory relief, with two judges dissenting. This application followed.

Our well-settled jurisprudence recognizes that not every minor defect or deviation in a sidewalk is unreasonably dangerous. See Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, 11-0898 (La.1/24/12), 85 So.3d 593.

In the instant case, the deviation in the sidewalk (approximately one to three inches) was relatively small. The deviation was typical of other cracks in the sidewalk caused by tree roots, which are typical in older neighborhoods. The City-Parish produced evidence that it received no complaints about the deviation, nor had there been any prior accidents involving the deviation in over twenty-five years. Plaintiff admitted he was not keeping a [350]*350proper look-out at the time of the fall. Other than a single affidavit (which appears largely conclusory in nature), plaintiff produced no contrary evidence. Under these circumstances, we find the City/Parish established it is entitled to summary judgment.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and summary judgment is granted in favor of the City/Parish.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 So. 3d 349, 2014 WL 2931693, 2014 La. LEXIS 1578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-doucet-la-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack