Lopez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Lopez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

405 So. 2d 1124, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 5315

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 8, 1981

DocketNo. 12692

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 405 So. 2d 1124 (Lopez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lopez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 405 So. 2d 1124, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 5315 (La. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHOTT, Judge.

This appeal is from the granting of a motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s case against Guy Lowe, Jr. and his insurer, Affiliated F & M Insurance Company. Other defendants are not involved in this appeal. The issue is whether the owner of a shopping center is liable to plaintiff under LSA-C.C. Art. 2322 for an injury sustained by plaintiff while he was using an allegedly defective electric saw owned by his employer and brought on the premises in connection with construction work being performed by plaintiff and his employer.

Art. 2322 makes the owner strictly liable for damage resulting from defects in the building, including appurtenances to the building. Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., 365 So.2d 1285 (La.1978), Cothern v. LaRocca, 255 La. 673, 232 So.2d 473 (1970), Boudoin v. Sehwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarket, 371 So.2d 370 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), Fontenot v. Sarver, 183 So.2d 75 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1966).

Since the saw was not an appurtenance to appellee’s building these cases and the article are not applicable and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

SCHOTT, Judge.

This appeal is from the granting of a motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s case against Guy Lowe, Jr. and his insurer, Affiliated F & M Insurance Company. Other defendants are not involved in this appeal. The issue is whether the owner of a shopping center is liable to plaintiff under LSA-C.C. Art. 2322 for an injury sustained by plaintiff while he was using an allegedly defective electric saw owned by his employer and brought on the premises in connection with construction work being performed by plaintiff and his employer.

Art. 2322 makes the owner strictly liable for damage resulting from defects in the building, including appurtenances to the building. Olsen v. Shell Oil Co., 365 So.2d 1285 (La.1978), Cothern v. LaRocca, 255 La. 673, 232 So.2d 473 (1970), Boudoin v. Sehwegmann Bros. Giant Supermarket, 371 So.2d 370 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), Fontenot v. Sarver, 183 So.2d 75 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1966).

Since the saw was not an appurtenance to appellee’s building these cases and the article are not applicable and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

405 So. 2d 1124, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 5315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-sears-roebuck-co-lactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack