Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bernard v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit

October 3, 2018

VERA BERNARD
v.
ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO., ET AL

          APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20120698 HONORABLE MARILYN CARR CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

          Lawrence Blake Jones David C. Whitmore Blake Jones Law Firm, LLC COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Vera Bernard

          Steven B. Witman Law Offices of Steven B. Whitman COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Stanley Access Technologies LLC

          Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

          SHANNON J. GREMILLION JUDGE.

         The 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.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Bernard 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.

         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 garde.
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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.