Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-1624 SECTION: "N"
April 30, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant International Rivercenter Partnership d/b/a The Hilton New Orleans Riverside. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Background
Construed in Plaintiffs' favor, the evidence reveals that plaintiff Ms. Michaels and three other hotel guests, Mr. Tony Bennett and his wife, and Mr. Dennis Fink, arrived at the Hilton at approximately midnight on July 10, 2002. Upon entering the first floor of the hotel, Ms. Michaels and Mr. Fink surmised that the hotel registration desk was located on the second floor. They, however, did not see a bellman or other hotel employee upon entry, and noticed that the nearby bank of elevators appeared inoperable. From their vantage point, they could not see the second bank of elevators or hotel courtesy phones also located on the first floor of the hotel. Nor was there a sign or other instructions directing them to the second bank of elevators or a hotel phone.
Ms. Michaels and Mr. Fink waited approximately 2-3 minutes after entering the hotel for a bellman to assist them with their luggage. When one did not arrive during that time, Ms. Michaels and Mr. Fink proceeded to the escalator. While attempting to pull her wheeled luggage bag onto the escalator, Ms. Michaels caught her bag on the side of the escalator. This jerked her arm, causing her to lose her balance and to fall. She suffered a minor cut on her left thumb and injury to her back as a result of the fall.
The other two arriving hotel guests, Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, entered the hotel 2-3 minutes before Ms. Michaels and Mr. Fink and had disappeared from sight by the time Ms. Michaels and Mr. Fink walked inside.
Law and Analysis
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is properly granted only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action." Roberts v. Cardinal Services, Inc., 266 F.3d 368, 373 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 1357 (2002). A factual dispute precludes a grant of summary judgment if the evidence would permit a reasonable trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Smith v. Amedisys, 298 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are premised on Louisiana negligence law. To establish such liability, the parties agree that Plaintiffs must prove that Defendant's conduct was (1) a cause-in-fact of Plaintiffs' injuries; (2) that Defendant owed a duty to Ms. Michaels to conform its behavior to a specific standard; (3) that Defendant breached that duty; (4) that the risk of harm was within the scope of the protection afforded by the duty breached; and (5) that Plaintiffs suffered actual damages. See Perkins v. Entergy Corp., 782 So.2d 606, 611 (La. 2001); Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032, 1041, 1051 (La. 1992) (on rehearing); Fleming v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 774 So.2d 174, 177 (La.Ct.App. 4 Cir. 2000). Failure to prove even one of these elements precludes a finding of liability against Defendant. Perkins, 782 So.2d at 611. Whereas the second element questions the very existence of a duty, the fourth element questions whether the injury suffered is one of the risks encompassed by the rule of law imposing the duty. Roberts, 605 So.2d at 1044. The existence of a duty and the scope of that duty are questions of law. Fleming v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 774 So.2d 174, 177 (La.Ct.App. 4 Cir. 2000).
Focusing on Plaintiffs' complaint and discovery responses, as well as Ms. Michaels' deposition testimony, Defendant views Plaintiffs to allege that liability should be imposed against it because Ms. Michaels did not see a bellman or operating elevator within two minutes of her midnight arrival, and then lost her balance when using the escalator to ascend to the second floor. Defendant argues that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' claims because, under the circumstances, it did not owe a legal duty to Ms. Michaels, and its actions were not a legal cause of her accident. Specifically, Defendant contends that its duty to maintain the hotel premises in a reasonably safe and suitable condition did not include providing uninterrupted bellman or elevator service. Even assuming it did, Defendant maintains that that duty did not encompass the risk that Ms. Michaels would lose her balance on a properly functioning escalator.
In their opposition memorandum, Plaintiffs clarify that Ms. Michaels' fall resulted when her luggage caught on the side of the escalator, and not from an unprecipitated loss of balance. They further urge that they do not contend that Defendant was obligated to provide uninterrupted bellman or elevator service. Rather, they assert that Defendant had a duty to have an employee on the first floor of the hotel, or uninterrupted elevator service, or a sign notifying guests of how they could request assistance with bringing their luggage to the second-floor registration desk.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant had a duty to maintain the hotel premises in a reasonably safe and suitable condition. Fleming, 774 So.2d at 177. This duty included an obligation to provide a reasonably safe means for arriving hotel guests to travel from a point of public entry to the second-floor registration desk. The Court disagrees, however, that this duty required Defendant to provide uninterrupted elevator and/or bellman service at midnight, or to provide a sign informing guests of a means to contact hotel personnel for assistance with luggage. Stated another way, the Court does not find that offering only a properly functioning escalator for transporting arriving guests constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition, when considered in light of the facts of this particular case.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court need not consider the nonetheless available elevators and hotel courtesy phones which Plaintiffs contend were not visible upon entry into the hotel.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court notes Defendant's citation of Champs v. Chicago Housing Authority, 491 N.E.2d 20 (Ill.App. 1986), and Curry v. Chicago Housing Authority, 503 N.E.2d 1055 (Ill.App. 1986), in support of its position. These cases held that the defendant did not have a duty to keep elevators in an apartment building in a reasonably continuous safe operative condition, and that requiring tenants and others to use stairs, while the elevators were inoperable pending repairs, did not create an unreasonable risk of injury. The Court finds these cases, though, of course, not binding, persuasive enough to warrant reliance thereon.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claims against Defendant as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Court reaches the same conclusion in this case regardless of whether the proper inquiry here is viewed as defining, the relevant duty or determining whether that duty was breached. Although the question of breach generally is one for the trier of fact, all material facts relevant to this inquiry are undisputed in this case. Accordingly, the Court rules on this issue as a matter of law.