When a pedestrian trips on a cracked sidewalk in front of a landmark like Charity Hospital in New Orleans, they often assume the State or the City is automatically liable. However, as the case of Dawson v. Louisiana demonstrates, your case can be dismissed before it even starts if you cannot prove “Garde”—the legal term for custody and authority over the property.
Note: For a full breakdown of the evidence required to win cases like this, see our Ultimate Guide to Proving a Louisiana Slip and Fall.
The Incident: A Cracked Sidewalk at Charity Hospital
In October 2007, James Dawson suffered injuries after tripping on a sidewalk crack near the entrance to Charity Hospital. Believing the State of Louisiana was responsible for the hospital’s maintenance, he filed a lawsuit. However, the State moved for a Motion for Summary Judgment (La. C.C.P. art. 966), a procedural tool used to dismiss claims that lack factual support.
Generally, when an accident occurs on a property that is the result of the property owner’s negligence, it is presumed that the property owner is liable for the person’s injury. However, when liability does not exist, a motion for summary judgment is a procedural device that the defendant in a lawsuit can use to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim. Under Louisiana law, a motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and discovery show there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the party seeking summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See La. C.C.P. art. 966.
A trip-and-fall case offers an example of a defendant’s successful use of summary judgment. On October 11, 2007, James Dawson tripped and fell on the sidewalk near the entrance to Charity Hospital in New Orleans. He tripped on a crack in the sidewalk and suffered injuries as a result. Contending the State of Louisiana, as the owner of the hospital, was liable for failing to maintain the sidewalk, Dawson filed a lawsuit.
The “Garde” Defense: Who Actually Owns the Sidewalk?
The State’s defense was simple: “It’s not our sidewalk.” To prove this, they produced affidavits from a DOTD engineer and a hospital supervisor. They testified that:
- The State’s right-of-way ended two blocks away from the fall site.
- Charity Hospital staff performed no maintenance on that specific stretch of concrete.
Under La. R.S. 9:2800, you must prove that the public entity had “custody” of the property. Because the State proved they didn’t own it, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to produce a map, a deed, or a maintenance record proving otherwise. When he couldn’t, the court dismissed the case entirely.
How Summary Judgment Dismissed the Charity Hospital Case
The State moved for a motion for summary judgment. In its motion, the State disputed Dawson’s allegation that it had authority over the sidewalk where his injuries occurred, arguing that without proof of authority, it could not be liable for Dawson’s injuries. See La. R.S. 9:2800. The State supported its motion with affidavits from Frederick L. Wetekamm, an engineer for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and Robert J. Arnould, a maintenance supervisor for Charity Hospital. Wetekamm explained that the State was only responsible for maintaining its right-of-way on Tulane Avenue which began two blocks beyond the hospital. Arnold stated that Charity Hospital maintenance staff conducted no activities affecting the condition of the sidewalk in front of the hospital.
Dawson filed an opposition memorandum to the State’s motion for summary judgment. He argued Wetekamm and Arnold’s affidavits lacked material evidence and relevance. Dawson referred to depositions of Wetekamm and Arnold, as well as photographs of the scene of the accident in support of his argument that he should be permitted to go to trial. The trial court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Dawson’s claim with prejudice. Dawson appealed the judgment.
The Shifting Burden of Proof in Summary Judgment
Many victims misunderstand how a Motion for Summary Judgment works. The defendant doesn’t have to prove they are “innocent” of negligence; they only have to show a hole in your evidence.
Once the State showed the “hole” (the lack of custody), it was up to Mr. Dawson to fill it. This “shifting burden” is why many New Orleans trip and fall claims fail: the investigation into property ownership wasn’t thorough enough in the early stages of litigation.
Avoiding the Summary Judgment Trap in New Orleans Trip and Fall Claims
On review, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal noted that Dawson misunderstood the shifting burden of proof in the operation of summary judgment. To prevail, the State was not obligated to deny every element of Dawson’s claim or present witnesses with firsthand information; instead, the State only needed to show the absence of factual support for one element of Dawson’s claim.
The State, through the affidavits of Wetekamm and Arnold, asserted that it did not have custody or authority over the hospital sidewalk. Thus, the burden then shifted to Dawson to produce evidence showing that the State did, in fact, have custody or authority over the sidewalk where his fall occurred. Dawson did not offer any evidence of the State’s authority, thereby failing to meet his burden of proof. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
This case illustrates the importance of retaining an experienced attorney who understands the rules of trial procedure in Louisiana. James Dawson never had his day in court but was defeated by the State’s motion for summary judgment before the trial could even begin.
Surviving a Motion for Summary Judgment requires ‘positive evidence’ of ownership and negligence. To see how we investigate property records and build a trial-ready file, visit our Louisiana Slip and Fall Litigation Process & Case Studies hub.
Written by Berniard Law Firm
If you’ve been injured and need to know what evidence to collect immediately, visit our Guide to Proving a Louisiana Slip and Fall.
Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Louisiana Summary Judgement: Louisiana First Circuit Highlights Burdens of Proof in Bringing or Opposing a Motion for Summary Judgment In Ascension Parish Lawsuit