Acosta v. Farrell, et al, No. 2:2014cv01609 - Document 48 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 47 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Acosta v. Farrell, et al Doc. 48 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A CARMEN ACOSTA, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 14 -16 0 9 RESID EN CE IN N BY MARRIOTT, L.L.C., ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 3 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent filed by Defendant, Residen ce Inn by Marriott, LLC. 1 Plaintiff Carm en Acosta has not filed an opposition to the m otion. Accordingly, the Court considers the Defendant’s statem ent of uncontested facts to be adm itted pursuant to Local Rule 56.2. Although the dispositive m otion is unopposed, sum m ary judgm ent is not autom atic, and the Court m ust determ ine whether the Plaintiff has shown an entitlem ent to judgm ent as a m atter of law. 2 This m atter arises from an incident in which the Plaintiff, Carm en Acosta, gained access to the roof of the Residence Inn by Marriott (“Residence Inn”), a hotel located in New Orleans, and began to ignite fireworks with another individual, Antony Farrell. 3 Plaintiff alleges that, while on the roof, Farrell ignited a firework that she was holding, and the firework exploded in her hand. 4 Plaintiff argues she sustained “serious bodily injury” as a result of the explosion, including “a broken pinky, a fractured wrist, fractured fingers, [and] m assive lacerations of her hands.”5 Plaintiff sued, am ong others, 6 the Residence Inn, arguin g that the hotel and its owners were negligent for, inter alia, (1) 1 R. Doc. 47. See, e.g., Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (5th Cir. 20 0 6); F ED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). 3 See R. Doc. 47-2 at 1; R. Doc. 47-1 at 1– 2. 4 R. Doc. 47-2 at 1; R. Doc. 47-1 at 2; R. Doc. 1-2 at 4. 5 R. Doc. 1-2 at 4. 6 The Residence Inn by Marriott is the only rem ainin g defendant. The others have been dism issed. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com allowing the Plaintiff to access the roof, (2) failing to keep the rooftop door locked, (3) failing to post signs prohibiting access to the roof, and (4) failing to have adequate security personnel. 7 On April 22, 20 16, the Residence Inn filed the instant m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 8 The Residen ce Inn argues that, even if it was negligent in allowing the Plaintiff to access the hotel’s roof, “such negligence did not cause [Plaintiff’s] injuries.”9 Because the Plaintiff cannot establish causation, a necessary elem ent of her negligence claim , the Residence Inn contends it should be granted sum m ary judgm ent and the Plaintiff’s claim s against it dism issed. The Court agrees. To establish causation, the Plaintiff m ust show that, absent any negligence of the Residence Inn, she would not have sustained her injuries. 10 Stated differently, causation exists only if the Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred “but for” the Residen ce Inn’s alleged negligence in allowing the Plaintiff to access the roof. In its statem ent of uncontested facts, the Residence Inn states that: “While [Plaintiff] was on the hotel’s roof, she was injured when her com panion, Ants Farrell (“Farrell”), without her knowledge or perm ission, ignited a firework she was holding, which firework exploded as she attem pted to place it on the ground. Residen ce Inn neither knew nor should have known that [Plaintiff] was holding the firework or that Farrell intended to ignite it without [Plaintiff’s] knowledge or perm ission.”11 It is clear, based on the record before the Court, that the Residence Inn’s alleged negligence was not the “but for” cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. 7 R. Doc. 1-2 at 6– 7. R. Doc. 47. 9 R. Doc. 47-2 at 7. 10 See, e.g., Totson v. Pardon , 0 3-1747, p. 10 (La. 4/ 23/ 0 4), 874 So. 2d 791, 799. 11 R. Doc. 47-1 at 2. 8 2 Based on this record, in which the Plaintiff has not opposed the Residence Inn’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, the Court concludes that there is no genuine issue of m aterial fact with respect to the causation elem ent of Plaintiff’s negligence claim . Plaintiff has failed to show that, absent the alleged negligence of the Residence Inn, she would not have been injured. Accordingly; IT IS ORD ERED that the m otion for sum m ary judgm ent filed by the Defendant, Residence Inn by Marriott, is GRAN TED , 12 and Plaintiff’s claim s are D ISMISSED W ITH PREJU D ICE. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 7th d ay o f May, 2 0 16 . _______ _____________ __________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 12 R. Doc. 47. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
