Patricia Anne Jones v. Eti, Inc., Wheeler Tile Construction, Inc., Precision Shoring, LLC, Ross Construction & Remodeling, LLC

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 25, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CA-0520
• Status: Published

Opinion

PATRICIA ANNE JONES * NO. 2024-CA-0520

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

ETI, INC., WHEELER TILE * FOURTH CIRCUIT CONSTRUCTION, INC., PRECISION SHORING, LLC, * STATE OF LOUISIANA ROSS CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING, LLC *

* *******

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

PATRICIA A. JONES NO. 2024-CA-0521

VERSUS

ETI, INCORPORATED, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, PRECISION SHORING, LLC, ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, RLH INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A LANDRIEU CONCRETE SERVICES, DEF INSURANCE COMPANY, ROSS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY

RML LEDET, J, DISSENTING WITH REASONS

I would affirm the trial court’s judgment granting Defendants’ summary

judgment motion and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against them. Plaintiff—Patricia

Jones (“Ms. Jones”)—cannot identify what caused her to fall. Ms. Jones, in her

deposition, speculates that the cement hose was “the force” that struck her. Such

speculation is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Samuels v.

United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 14-0505 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/15/14), 2014 WL

5310497 (unpub.) (observing that plaintiff’s “speculation as to the source of the

substance or defect that caused his fall is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of

material fact”); Maddox v. Howard Hughes Corp., 19-0135, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir.

4/17/19), 268 So.3d 333, 339 (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted)

1 (observing that “[a]llegations that a non-moving escalator is more dangerous than

stairs, inferences that since her feet were dry and it was the nearest exit to her

vehicle, the escalator was the cause of her fall, and speculations that the escalator

treads were not the same as stair treads are not sufficient to create a genuine issue

of material fact”).1 For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment

granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissing Ms. Jones’ claims

against them. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

1 See also Smith v. Casino New Orleans Casino, 12-0292, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/3/12), 101

So.3d 507, 514; Thomas v. Caesars Entm’t Operating Co., Inc., 12-1202, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/23/13), 106 So.3d 1279, 1284 (Ledet, J., dissenting). 2