Appealed from the Twenty-First Judicial District Court In and
for the Parish of Livingston State of Louisiana Docket Number
C153573 Section C The Honorable Robert H. Morrison, III,
M. Lefeve Baton Rouge, Louisiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
PLAINTIFF- Krystal Tilley, individually and on behalf of
Christopher M. Moody Albert D. Giraud Hammond, Louisiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE DEFENDANT- City of Walker
Before: Welch, Chutz, and Lanier, JJ.
plaintiff, Krystal Tilley-individually and on behalf of her
minor child, Elijah Tilley-appeals the trial court's
judgment granting the City of Walker's motion for summary
judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm.
and Procedural History
October 15, 2015, Elijah Tilley was playing on a seesaw at
C.E. "Punk" Smith Memorial Park in Walker,
Livingston Parish, Louisiana. At some point while riding the
seesaw, the seesaw broke, and Elijah fell to the base of the
seesaw and suffered a broken right arm, which required
surgery. Ms. Tilley subsequently brought suit against the
City of Walker, the City of Walker Parks and Recreation, the
City of Walker Department of Public Works, and the Parish of
Livingston. The City of Walker
("City") answered the petition, asserting general
denials except admitting that it owned the park where the
accident occurred. The City alleged that it had no actual or
constructive notice of any defective condition, that any
purported defect did not rise to the level of creating an
unreasonable risk of harm, and therefore, it was not liable
under La. R.S. 9:2800. Further, the City asserted that it was
entitled to immunity as a public entity under La. R.S.
9:2791, 2798.1, and 2795.
City moved for summary judgment, contending that there was no
genuine issue of material fact because there was no defect in
the seesaw in question; the City had no actual or
constructive knowledge of any alleged defect; and the alleged
defect was not the cause-in-fact of the plaintiffs injury.
The City also argued that because the park is open to the
public on a non-profit basis for recreational use, it was
entitled to immunity pursuant to La. R.S. 9:2795.
Tilley opposed the City's motion, offering an expert
report to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the seesaw was defective, the City had constructive
notice, and causation. Ms. Tilley also filed a motion to
compel the City to make the seesaw available to Ms.
Tilley's expert for additional inspection, which the
trial court granted in a judgment signed April 11, 2018.
Friday, June 1, 2018, Ms. Tilley faxed a copy of her
expert's supplemental report to the trial court and the
City. On Monday, June 4, 2018, the trial court held a hearing
on the City's motion for summary judgment. The City
objected to the late-filed expert report by Ms. Tilley.
Following the hearing, the trial court took the matter under
advisement. On July 10, 2018, the trial court signed a
judgment granting the City's motion for summary judgment
and dismissing Ms. Tilley's claims against the City, with
prejudice. The trial court also issued reasons for judgment.
Tilley filed a devolutive appeal of the June 10, 2018
judgment. After the appeal was lodged, Ms. Tilley filed a
motion to supplement the trial court's record with an
affidavit of her expert and her expert's supplemental
report. The trial court granted Ms. Tilley's motion
expressly noting that "per communication with [the
City's] counsel, there [was] no objection to the