SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 131, 961 HONORABLE LEWIS H. PITMAN,
JR., DISTRICT JUDGE
Bernard Carl J. Rachal Meagan M. Smith Bart Bernard Personal
Injury Law Firm COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT: Britteny
Scott Rainwater Claire E. Sauls Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT: St. Edwards
Limited Partnership Edwards Holding, LLC
composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R.
Cooks, and John D. Saunders, Judges.
D. SAUNDERS JUDGE
St. Edwards Limited Partnership and Edwards Holding, LLC,
(Relators) seek supervisory writs from the judgment of the
Sixteenth Judicial District Court, the Honorable Lewis H.
Pitman presiding, which denied Relators' motion for
OF THE CASE
case arises from an accident on April 1, 2017, wherein
Plaintiff, Britteny Chenet (Chenet), fell and injured her
foot while walking to a residence at St. Edwards Subdivision
Apartments to purchase "cold cups" for her
children. Chenet alleges that she was forced to leave the
sidewalk and walk in the grass due to the presence of bags of
concrete on the sidewalk blocking her path to the residence.
While she was walking in the grass, allegedly she stepped in
a hole obscured by grass and fell.
March 29, 2018, Chenet filed suit against Relators for
damages sustained as a result of the fall. On January 22,
2019, Relators filed a motion for summary judgment on the
grounds that Chenet could not carry her burden of proving
that the hole on Relators' property constituted an
unreasonable risk of harm. On March 26, 2019, the motion was
denied following a hearing, and written judgment was signed
to this effect on April 16, 2019. Relators are now before
this court on writs seeking review of the trial court's
requirement of irreparable injury is met in this case in
light of Herlitz Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of
New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La.1981). When the
overruling of an exception is arguably incorrect, when a
reversal will terminate the litigation, and when there is no
dispute of fact to be resolved, judicial efficiency and
fundamental fairness to the litigants dictate that the merits
of the application for supervisory writs should be decided in
an attempt to avoid the waste of time and expense of a
possibly useless future trial on the merits. Id.
Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc., 08-528, pp.
4-5 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So.2d 1184, 1186-1186, the supreme
court explained (citations omitted):
It is well-settled law that a landowner owes a duty to a
plaintiff to discover any unreasonably dangerous conditions,
and to either correct the ...