Brenda Campbell VS Robert M. Grodner and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT BRENDA CAMPBELL NO. 2015 CW 0691 MAY 2015 VERSUS ROBERT FARM M. GRODNER AND STATE 22, FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY In Re: Robert 19th M. Judicial Rouge, BEFORE: WRIT No. McDONALD, the WELCH, on of and the owed her commode by their a area from homeowner home, to to: let less with pet of come home sense. who has on a on and a let to get the the motion for at home. motion for summary out the of the is no duty party to keep master bathroom duty were when so on they that the frequent the that Judgment plaintiff's claims against Mr. duty essential imposed, leave their pet would be or require the pet owner to grant of there third This defies judgment judgment owed a an the individual whose duties were floor, judgment. a of basis hereby 2015 case, slipped on dog urine If such a hire an pet we to required, frequent the 20, summary Baton JJ. allegations she floor rid of the pet. April writs, East this establish the that pet, would be their pet, Accordingly, reverse of of master' bathroom -- likely to urinate on the otherwise, facts to Assuming the pet out failed are true -- is not a kennel the supervisory Parish HOLDRIDGE AND CHUTZ, particular has urinating when the homeowner a the claims. homeowner, pet for Court, CRAIN, thus plaintiff's deposition in District failed to establish that the defendant plaintiff, element applying 619807. Based GRANTED. plaintiff has to Grodner, Mr. intervals; writ application denied is the rendered Grodner or reason and common and defendant' s the dismissing and granting the Grodner with prejudice. JMM JEW Crain, Campbell, M. the concurring. J., that Grodner, she has causation Even slipped pointed element of see also Additionally, support Louisiana the Civil Grodner Code protect plaintiff, his master domestic Grodner inding pointed the under Grodner residence an factual of in of an of Civil absence was support of Code factual in " ruin." sufficient support to of had for no La. 1992). factual claim under duty to to be in, with his regard article to Ms. 2317.1, Mr. factual support for that presents an regard article La. absence With of Ms. 2d 827 ( associated defect" With So. or expect Code Robert Louisiana 1013 ( Grodner risk absence a" harm." an space. Civil under 553 2d Ms. support Campbell's Mr. the Louisiana out out by defendant, claim invite to, that argued factual So. Ms. 2315. against Louisiana out pointed he did not existence risk pointed produce who urinating unreasonable claim article claim under has has the Seal, 602 Landry, as of Campbell' s element bathroom, pet Campbell' s v. duty urine, absence See Boyer v. Burton Mr. for dog an Ms. Civil Code article 2321. 1989); in out assuming, to 2322, for Ms. Mr. Campbell's Grodner finding Campbell has establish that that failed has the to she will be STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT able to these satisfy application, Mr. her issues. reversing Grodner' s motion judgment evidentiary Accordingly, in favor of the for burden I April 20, summary Mr. of proof in concur granting , the 2015 judgment judgment, Grodner and at trial that and rendering dismissing Ms. on writ denied summary Campbell' s claims against him with prejudice. Holdridge and Chutz, duty to create keep an Whether by the premises unreasonable or dangerous his not is a the judgment. freely urinate dangerous If in condition, dangerous risk issue submitted summary the free a from in of any this case connection warn case, an which was a the the allows an established motion his unreasonably invited there guest of evidence of the FIRST CIRCUIT CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT to duty to either clean up no OF APPEAL, for pet is COURT a would guest. defendant attempted to warn the plaintiff condition created by his freely urinating dog. the has unreasonably not with and which invited was creating he definitely has In to knows homeowner condition this fact premises or defendant harm homeowner his condition condition. in The of condition material evidence dangerous dissent. JJ. the that hazardous
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.
