Roger Butler v. International Paper Company ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 15-30674      Document: 00513345414         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/18/2016
    REVISED January 15, 2016
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 15-30674
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    Summary Calendar                         January 14, 2016
    Lyle W. Cayce
    ROGER D. BUTLER,                                                                 Clerk
    Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, doing business as Temple-Inland;
    ALVEY J. WITMER, III,
    Defendants - Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:14-CV-476
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Appellant Roger D. Butler filed a negligence action against Appellees in
    Louisiana state court. After removing to federal court, Appellees moved for
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 15-30674      Document: 00513345414       Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/18/2016
    No. 15-30674
    summary judgment. The district court granted this motion. Butler appeals
    the district court’s decision, and we AFFIRM.
    I.
    On February 27, 2013, Roger D. Butler was working at a mill in
    Dequincy, Louisiana.       Around 9:30 PM, he received a message from his
    supervisor instructing him to clear a board jam from a chipping machine.
    While clearing this board jam, he allegedly slipped and fell down a set of stairs.
    Butler alleges that the fall was caused by the presence of wood chips and other
    debris produced by the chipping machine on the stairs. Butler suffered serious
    injuries as a result of the fall. He and his wife subsequently filed a negligence
    action against Appellees in state court.         After removing to federal court,
    Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment. They argued that they owed
    no duty to Butler because the presence of wood chips on the stairs was an “open
    and obvious” hazard.        The district court agreed and granted summary
    judgment in favor of Appellees. The court concluded that Butler had not
    created a genuine dispute of fact as to the duty element of his claim because
    “[t]he presence of debris on the stairs was open and obvious to all who would
    have encountered it.” Butler timely appealed to this Court.
    II.
    “We review summary judgment de novo, using the same standards as
    the district court. Summary judgment is proper when ‘there is no genuine
    dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
    matter of law.’ We view the evidence and all justifiable inferences in the light
    most favorable of the nonmoving party.” 1
    1   Wiltz v. Bayer CropScience, Ltd. P’ship, 
    645 F.3d 690
    , 694-95 (5th Cir. 2011)
    (citations omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
    2
    Case: 15-30674       Document: 00513345414         Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/18/2016
    No. 15-30674
    III.
    The parties agree that Louisiana law governs this diversity action. 2
    Under Louisiana law, “[t]he owner of a building is not responsible for all
    injuries resulting from any risk posed by the building. Rather, the owner is
    only responsible for those injuries caused by a ruinous condition or defective
    component part that presents an unreasonable risk of harm to others.” 3 The
    Louisiana Supreme Court has “recognized that defendants generally have no
    duty to protect against an open and obvious hazard. If the facts of a particular
    case show that the complained-of condition should be obvious to all, the
    condition may not be unreasonably dangerous, and the defendant may owe no
    duty to the plaintiff.” 4 Butler alleges that the district court committed two
    errors in applying this doctrine: (1) the court improperly concluded that the
    wood chips were open and obvious to all on the basis of Butler’s knowledge
    alone; and (2) the court failed to apply the risk-utility balancing test. We
    address each contention in turn.
    A.
    In order for a defect to be “open and obvious,” it “should be apparent to
    all who encounter the dangerous condition,” not just the plaintiff. 5                   The
    Louisiana Supreme Court has cautioned that this principle is “not a hollow
    maxim.”      To the contrary, “it serves an invaluable function, preventing
    concepts such as assumption of the risk from infiltrating our jurisprudence.” 6
    2  See 
    id. at 695.
           3  Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 
    113 So. 3d 175
    , 183 (La. 2013)
    (citation omitted).
    4 Eisenhardt v. Snook, 
    8 So. 3d 541
    , 544 (La. 2009) (per curiam).
    5 
    Broussard, 113 So. 3d at 188
    ; see also Bufkin v. Felipe’s La., LLC, 
    171 So. 3d 851
    ,
    856 (La. 2014) (“In order for an alleged hazard to be considered obvious and apparent, this
    court has consistently stated the hazard should be one that is open and obvious to everyone
    who may potentially encounter it.”).
    6 
    Broussard, 113 So. 3d at 188
    .
    3
    Case: 15-30674      Document: 00513345414         Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/18/2016
    No. 15-30674
    Butler argues that the district court contravened this rule by granting
    summary judgment “despite there being no evidence whatsoever that the wood
    chips on the stairs were a condition that was open and obvious” to anyone save
    himself.    He points to Pitre v. Louisiana Tech University—where several
    witnesses testified that they were aware of the alleged defect 7—as establishing
    the type of evidence that is needed to demonstrate that a defect is “open and
    obvious” to all.
    We disagree with this interpretation of Pitre. Though the evidence in
    Pitre that others were aware of the alleged defect was sufficient to establish
    that it was “open and obvious,” this evidence was not necessary to establish
    that the alleged defect was “open and obvious.”                As Appellees note, the
    Louisiana Supreme Court has relied upon the plaintiff’s testimony or
    photographs of the scene to establish that a condition is “open and obvious” in
    several different cases. 8 In this case, Butler testified that he was aware of the
    wood chips and other debris on the stairs. Though this evidence of knowledge
    is not dispositive, it leads to the inference that the wood chips would have been
    “open and obvious” to others using the stairs. Appellees also offered a video of
    the incident that provides a clear view of the debris on the stairs. Butler
    contends that this video does not resolve whether the wood chips are “open and
    obvious”—and that we should allow a jury to decide this question.
    Nevertheless, we have reviewed the video and agree with Appellees that it
    establishes that the wood chips were so numerous and prominent that no
    reasonable juror could conclude that they were not “open and obvious.” With
    7 See 
    673 So. 2d 585
    , 592 (La. 1996).
    8 See Allen v. Lockwood, 
    156 So. 3d 650
    , 653 (La. 2015) (per curiam); Bufkin, 
    171 So. 3d
    at 856; Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc., 
    995 So. 2d 1184
    , 1187 (La. 2008) (per
    curiam).
    4
    Case: 15-30674       Document: 00513345414            Page: 5   Date Filed: 01/18/2016
    No. 15-30674
    due regard for the role of the jury, we thus conclude that Appellees did not need
    to offer any additional evidence.
    B.
    Butler’s second argument relies on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s
    recent decision in Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings. 9 In
    Broussard, the Louisiana Supreme Court observed that “whether a defect
    presents an unreasonable risk of harm is a matter wed to the facts and must
    be determined in light of facts and circumstances of each particular case.” 10 As
    a result, the court explained it has adopted a four-factor “risk-utility balancing
    test” in order “[t]o aid the trier-of-fact in making this unscientific, factual
    determination.” 11 The fact-finder should consider whether the alleged defect
    is “open and obvious” as part of this test, but only as it relates to one of these
    four factors. 12 Butler urges that the district court ignored this legal framework
    and granted summary judgment solely on the basis that the alleged defect is
    “open and obvious.” He argues that we should, at the very least, remand and
    order the application of the risk-utility balancing test.
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, recently clarified that the
    application of the risk-utility balancing test is not necessary at the summary
    judgment stage. In Allen v. Lockwood, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted
    review in order “to provide much needed guidance to both the practitioners and
    the Judiciary of this State on the proper interpretation and application of our
    holding in Broussard.” 13 Reviewing the proceedings below, the court explained
    that the lower court had failed to appreciate that “Broussard was a three-day
    jury trial involving a fact-intensive determination as to whether the defect
    9 
    113 So. 3d 175
    .
    10 
    Id. at 183
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    11 
    Id. at 184.
          12 See 
    id. at 186-93.
          
    13 156 So. 3d at 651
    .
    5
    Case: 15-30674       Document: 00513345414          Page: 6     Date Filed: 01/18/2016
    No. 15-30674
    posed an unreasonable risk of harm or constituted an open and obvious defect.”
    The court clarified that—given this context—its “comments under [the]
    discussion” of the risk-utility balancing test in Broussard “clearly pertained to
    cases that were tried either by judge or jury.” 14 Turning back to the case under
    review, the court then concluded that summary judgment should be granted
    for the defendants because the “complained-of condition . . . was obvious and
    apparent to anyone who may potentially encounter it.” 15 The district court did
    not err by following this guidance. 16
    But even assuming the district court should have applied the risk-utility
    balancing test, there was no reversible error. 17 The risk-utility balancing test
    requires “consideration of four pertinent factors: (1) the utility of the
    complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including
    the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing
    the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff’s activities in terms of its social
    utility or whether it is dangerous by nature.” 18 Butler argues that the utility
    of the complained-of condition, the cost of preventing the harm, and the nature
    of the plaintiff’s activities all weigh in his favor. Nevertheless, even if this is
    true, the second factor is dispositive in this case. “[W]hen the risk is open and
    obvious to everyone, the probability of injury is low and the thing’s utility may
    outweigh the risks caused by its defective condition.” 19 The video submitted
    14  
    Id. at 652.
           15  See 
    id. at 653.
            16 See Rodriquez v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 
    152 So. 3d 871
    , 872 (La. 2014) (per curiam)
    (concluding that summary judgment was appropriate solely because the “risk of harm” was
    “open and obvious”).
    17 See Gilbert v. Donahoe, 
    751 F.3d 303
    , 311 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Under our precedent, we
    may affirm on any ground supported by the record, including one not reached by the district
    court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    18 Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 
    113 So. 3d 175
    , 184 (La. 2013).
    19 Id.; see also Caserta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 
    90 So. 3d 1042
    , 1043 (La. 2012) (per
    curiam) (“Based on these undisputed facts, we believe any risk from attempting to remove
    6
    Case: 15-30674       Document: 00513345414          Page: 7     Date Filed: 01/18/2016
    No. 15-30674
    by Appellees establishes that the wood chips were “open and obvious” and
    posed a very low risk of injury. 20 Accordingly, the utility of the chipping
    machine and stairs outweighed any minimal risk posed by the wood chips. 21
    The minimal risk of harm also limits the relevance of the other two factors.
    Appellees may have been able to prevent the harm at a low cost, but a property
    owner does not necessarily need to expend any money to prevent a negligible
    risk of injury that can easily be avoided. 22 In the same vein, Butler’s activity
    may have great social value, but a minimal risk of harm does not appreciably
    interfere with this activity. Butler may complain that this analysis is little
    different from the district court’s approach, but the Louisiana Supreme Court
    has instructed that one factor may often be determinative under the risk-
    utility balancing test. 23 Indeed, the Louisiana Supreme Court has concluded
    in several cases that the balancing “revolve[d] around the second factor,
    namely, the substantial likelihood and magnitude of harm from the [defect],
    the frozen lug nut should have been obvious to plaintiff, and could have been avoided through
    the use of ordinary care.”).
    20 See Eisenhardt v. Snook, 
    8 So. 3d 541
    , 545 (La. 2009) (per curiam) (concluding that
    summary judgment was appropriate in case where plaintiff slipped and fell down stairs
    because the slippery “condition of the steps should have been open and obvious”).
    21 Butler suggests that we should consider the utility of allowing “wood chips to spray
    onto [the] stairs,” not the utility of the chipping machine or stairs themselves. The Louisiana
    Supreme Court, however, has instructed that we should “focus[] on the social utility of the
    thing as a whole, notwithstanding the presence of the defect.” Pryor v. Iberia Par. Sch. Bd.,
    
    60 So. 3d 594
    , 597 (La. 2011) (per curiam).
    22 See Pitre v. La. Tech Univ., 
    673 So. 2d 585
    , 593 (La. 1996).
    23 See 
    Broussard, 113 So. 3d at 191-92
    .
    7
    Case: 15-30674      Document: 00513345414        Page: 8    Date Filed: 01/18/2016
    No. 15-30674
    with consideration to whether the [defect] was apparent or obvious.” 24 We
    conclude that this is true here as well.
    IV.
    Based on the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM.
    24  Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc., 
    995 So. 2d 1184
    , 1187 (La. 2008) (per
    curiam); see also Bufkin v. Felipe’s La., LLC, 
    171 So. 3d 851
    , 856-59 (La. 2014) (resting
    decision to grant summary judgment on second factor); 
    Pryor, 60 So. 3d at 598
    (same).
    8