Ray Eskine was a permanently disabled individual who used a walker to move around. When trying to see how long the grass was on his lot across the street, he walked across an elevated walkway in front of his house. One of the wheels on his walker slipped, causing him to fall into a ditch and get injured.
Eskine and his wife filed a lawsuit against the City of Gretna and its insurer, claiming the walkway was defective and presented an unreasonably dangerous condition. They claimed the City of Gretna was responsible for the care of the walkway and had knowledge of the defective condition that resulted in his injury.
The City of Gretna filed a summary judgment motion, arguing the Eskines could not show the walkway’s condition created an unreasonable risk of harm. Additionally, the City of Gretna argued the walkway’s condition was open and obvious, and Eskine did not exercise reasonable care in walking on it. Eskine claimed the walkway was defective because it was too narrow, had too much slope, was uneven, and the asphalt was breaking off. He said over the past twenty years, during which he had been using his walker, he had only walked over the at-issue walkway two or three times. He conceded nothing prevented him from seeing the walkway’s condition at the time of the incident.
A City of Gretna employee submitted an affidavit stating he was unaware of any prior complaints regarding the walkway-s condition. The trial court granted the City of Gretna’s summary judgment motion. The Eskines appealed.
The Eskines argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Gretna. They claimed there was a hidden defect in the walkway as it was not apparent it was too narrow. The City of Gretna claimed the walkway’s condition was open and obvious, and the appellate court agreed. Here, Eskine indicated he knew the location and condition of the at-issue walkway in front of his house. The evidence indicated that Eskine and anyone else could see the width of the walkway before deciding to walk there. The appellate court explained a reasonable person like Eskine, who used a walker, should not have tried to cross the walkway. Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Gretna.
In personal injury cases involving hazardous conditions, the presence of open and obvious defects can significantly impact the outcome. If a defect is apparent and a reasonable person should have been aware of it, it may hinder the injured party’s ability to recover damages. In this case, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s decision, noting that the condition of the walkway was open and obvious. Since Eskine was aware of the walkway’s condition and chose to walk on it despite its apparent defects, the court concluded that he did not exercise reasonable care. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the City of Gretna was upheld.
Consulting with a knowledgeable attorney is crucial if you have suffered harm due to a dangerous or defective condition. They can guide you on the necessary evidence to support your claim, assess the viability of your case, and help you navigate the complexities of personal injury law. By seeking legal advice, you can better understand your rights and options to pursue the compensation you deserve.
Additional Sources: Ray Eskine and Sondra Eskine v. The City of Gretna
Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Open and Obvious Conditions: Popular Baton Rouge Shopping Center Avoids Liability for “Open and Obvious” Sidewalk Danger