Shannon M. Rodrigue VS The Baton Rouge River Center d/b/a Riverside Performing Centroplex, DEF Insurance Company and the City of Baton Rouge
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT SHANNON 2016 NO. RODRIGUE M. CW 0924 VERSUS THE BATON D/ B/ A RIVER ROUGE CENTER PERFORMING RIVERSIDE CENTROPLEX, DEF INSURANCE COMPANY THE CITY BATON In AND OF SEP 2 2 2016 ROUGE SMG Re: BEFORE: WHIPPLE, WRIT C. J., remaining the on the 2) appropriate defendant' s substandard injuries ( plaintiff' s defendant' s the element); protection damages risk a must both particular connection appears such is risk it. Moory 4/ 29/ 05), So. 2d or able to Moreover, have a satisfy under to that is be to to a the the of scope to of damaged was the case, Failure injury the whether cause negligence been the of 4) or negligence have element); whether plaintiff against to take another only in it when the under undertaken the s in and encounter the law, open and obvious to a an to burden of v. and a duty, a stairwell known of she proof will State should everyone ex rel. be trial. at generally obvious hazard. i. e. the failed does hazard the claims, Plaintiff establish defendant Broussard for had in the have stairwell. all, Insurance support SMG lighting obvious, La. negligence should open Cir. App. Federal shows sufficient against it. the or evidentiary Louisiana protect that that knew support and factual remaining evidence lighting SMG of absence 1st 2005 - 0668 ( La. denied, writ Defendants, SMG her 2004 - 0319 ( Co., 478, ensure considered open potentially of that or factual duty order to to inadequate produce Ins. 1076. lack actual, adequate alleged would duty 3) to duty conform unreasonable. guard plaintiff' a In constitutes 474, pointed of particularly to So. 2d 901 and five a reasonably prudent individual. Finally, where there is no duty to warn or protect against Allstate v. elements was by a have assumed risk precaution a 906 Company, a obvious, 2/ 11/ 05), to precaution with circumstances a foreseeable entails legal a the 579. at to liability of whether Id. element). be scope 5) and ( the La. are element); ( was conduct the proving cause - in -fast a s cases had element); ( was of 2006 - 477 ( which failed cause - in -fact substandard injuries ( plaintiff' s the conduct the and plaintiff' negligence standard ( breach the standard ( to defendant conduct SMG by a preponderance analysis, the Judgment by burden Corp., Most specific defendant' s the filed SMG, Entergy 578. 2016 14, the JJ. HOLDRIDGE, As has defendant, whether a July s judgment she the duty -risk to AND reversed. v. 564, 1) conduct whether the Hanks elements: ( his conform of So. 2d resolved by employing separate is negligence, part 944 court' Court, 553645. THERIOT summary Company for evidence. 12/ 18/ 06), for for applying District Judicial CRAIN, district Company, No. Rouge, WELCH, motion claims negligence Baton The the Insurance Federal of East GRANTED. denied which of 19th writs, supervisory Parish Insurance Federal and be who Office not In one may of STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 2016 State 2012 - 1238 ( Buildings, the herein, deficiency alleged Insurance lack an open did SMG Company, have not in rendered and and to plaintiff' s claims dismissing Federal Insurance Company, with 175. SMG M. in and it. Federal and Shannon Rodrigue, defendants, against The against protect plaintiff, against 2) hazard, obvious defendants, of 0924 OF lighting sufficient of duty a favor 2 So. 3d 113 5/ 13), the constituted stairway, accordingly, Judgment is 4/ La CW PAGE NO. SMG and prejudice. WJC JEW Theriot, J., Whipple, Holdridge concurs further, and, determinations would dissents C. J., defendants' and that breach for the be duty the writ. reasons basis the on must of grant that herein made knowledge and by assigned factual the the regarding this render J. case inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment. Holdridge, of State dangerous open the and the allow insufficient liability no arguing created) that unreasonably is an open case fault, See to be and if obvious relevant hold of lack condition condition any of which which or may in be otherwise stairways absolved A condition that any, or caused the only with 175. unreasonably have To Office So. 3d Whether is opinion rel. an may insufficient dangerous ex 113 Broussard. owners, majority is lighting plaintiff of the The State 5/ 13) injuries. the building lighting, 4/ this s plaintiff. all an to percentage or by was in which plaintiff' the La insufficient obvious to attributed owner has to determining which 2012 - 1238 ( condition contributed would respectfully dissents. holding in Broussard v. Buildings, which stairway was J., the misrepresents and with all lighting building prevents recovery by the plaintiff. If this is in fact the state of no building stairway will ever have any lighting since the lack of lighting is a bar to recovery by the plaintiff. any the law, COURT OF APPEAL, EPUTY FOR CLERK THE FIRST OF CIRCUIT COURT COURT
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.
