FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF
LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20120698 HONORABLE MARILYN CARR CASTLE,
Lawrence Blake Jones David C. Whitmore Blake Jones Law Firm,
LLC COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Vera Bernard
B. Witman Law Offices of Steven B. Whitman COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Stanley Access Technologies LLC
composed of Billy Howard Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and D.
Kent Savoie, Judges.
SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE.
plaintiff, Vera Bernard (Bernard), appeals the trial
court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of
Stanley Access Technologies LLC (Stanley). For the following
reasons, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
filed a petition for damages in February 2012, alleging that
she sustained injuries in February 2011 at the Lafayette
Airport when she struck a revolving door that came to
"an abrupt halt" as she was exiting the airport.
Stanley was later named as a defendant in an amending
petition. Stanley installed the revolving doors at the
Lafayette Airport, which were thereafter inspected and
certified by Boon Edam, Inc. Stanley filed a motion for
summary judgment in July 2017. Following an August 2017
hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in
Stanley's favor finding it owed no duty to Bernard.
assigns as error:
1. The trial court erred in failing to find that the
appellees owed a duty to appellant.
2. Insofar as the trial court determined that Stanley did not
owe a duty to Ms. Bernard because there was no contractual
relationship between Ms. Bernard and Stanley, such a
determination was an error of law.
3. Insofar as the failure to find a duty was owed is based
upon the trial court's determination of the issue of
garde, the trial court erred in finding that the property
owner had garde over the doors involved in plaintiff's
accident when the issue of garde had not been addressed by
the Motion for Summary Judgment (as well as no other
pleading) and there are questions of fact as to who had
4. The trial court erred in failing to find that there was
sufficient circumstantial evidence that the door involved in
appellant's accident was malfunctioning at or near the
time of the appellant's accident, and that the
malfunction was due to matters which appellees were
contractually obligated to remedy.
5.The trial court erred in failing to find that there were
genuine issues of material fact as to whether the lack of
adequate warning was a contributing ...