FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2014-04864,
DIVISION "L-6" Honorable Kern A. Reese, Judge
Ray T. Malbrough R. Ray Orrill, Jr. William Christopher Beary
Alexandre L.M. Ducros ORRILL CORDELL & BEARY, L.L.C.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Alexander Richard Saunders PELLETERI & WIEDORN, L.L.C.
James Walter Hailey, III LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH,
LLP COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.
composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge
Regina Bartholomew Woods
Bartholomew Woods Judge.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
a personal injury suit arising out of a trip and fall on a
mat in the lobby of a bank. On May 17, 2013, Plaintiff, Sybil
Alexander ("Ms. Alexander"), made a routine visit
to the Whitney Bank located at 228 St. Charles Avenue in New
Orleans, Louisiana. Upon exiting the lobby of the bank, Ms.
Alexander alleges that she tripped and fell over a
"wave" or "lip" in the rubber edge of the
floor mat. As a result, she fell forward, striking her head
on the door resulting in a large gash. She also tore her
lateral and medial meniscus in her left knee.
16, 2014, Ms. Alexander filed this suit against Hancock Bank
d/b/a Whitney Bank ("Whitney"), and A-1 Services,
Inc. ("A-1"), as the supplier of the commercial
floor mat to Whitney. On January 4, 2016, Whitney filed a motion
for summary judgment on liability. A-1 likewise filed a
motion for summary judgment. On February 19, 2016, the trial
court granted the motions for summary judgment on liability
in favor of Whitney and A-1. Ms. Alexander filed this appeal
from the trial court's rulings.
appellate brief, Ms. Alexander presents a number of
assignments of error and issues for review. We frame the
issues presented as two-fold:
1. Whether the trial court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of the defendants was appropriate.
2. Whether the trial court applied the appropriate
substantive law in evaluating the defendants' motion for
we must determine whether the trial court's grant of
summary judgment in Whitney's favor was appropriate. An
appellate court conducts a de novo review, applying
the same criteria that govern the trial court's
determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate.
Brown v. Amar Oil Co., 2011-1631, p. 2 (La.App. 1
Cir. 11/8/12), 110 So.3d 1089, 1090 (citing Sanders v.
Ashland Oil, Inc., 96-1751, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir.
6/20/97), 696 So.2d 1031, 1035). A motion for summary
judgment should only be granted if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions,
together with any affidavits show that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and that the mover is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Collins v. Randall,
2002-0209, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/02), 836 So.2d 352,
354. The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of actions.
King v. Allen Court ...