Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendanttestimonymotionsummary judgmentburden of proof
plaintiffdefendantdamagesappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Adams v. BRG Sports, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 93497, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 21,315
View Case »
Le v. Zuffa, LLC, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 5085064
View Case »
National Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 65 USLW 2506, 1997-1 Trade Cases P 71,705, 1997 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,591, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1585, 25 Media L. Rep. 1385
View Case »
Monson v. State, 627 So.2d 1301, 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2617
View Case »
Mercer v. Duke University, 401 F.3d 199, 196 Ed. Law Rep. 104
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shear v. Trail Blazers, Inc., 329 So.3d 819, 2021-00873 (La. 12/21/21)

Facts

Helena Shear, a season ticket holder, was injured during a professional basketball game when a player collided with her while chasing a loose ball into the courtside seating area. Shear filed a lawsuit against the State of Louisiana, which owned and managed the arena, claiming that the seating arrangement was dangerous and that the State was negligent for not implementing safety measures. The State moved for summary judgment, arguing that Shear was aware of the risks associated with her seating position. The district court denied the motion, leading the State to seek supervisory review.

Helena Shear, a season ticket holder since the 2007 season, attended the game and was seated on the third row of the courtside seating. During the game, one of the players chased a loose ball into the courtside seating area. As he did so, he collided with Ms. Shear.

Issue

Whether the seating configuration during a basketball game was unreasonably dangerous, thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment.

We are presented with the question of whether defendants are entitled to summary judgment because there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the seating configuration during a basketball game was unreasonably dangerous.

Rule

A summary judgment is reviewed de novo, with the appellate court determining if there are genuine issues of material fact and if the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden of proof remains with the mover, but if they point out an absence of factual support for essential elements of the adverse party's claim, the non-moving party must produce sufficient factual support to avoid summary judgment.

A summary judgment is reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate court using the same criteria that govern the trial court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate; i.e., whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the seating configuration created an unreasonable risk of harm. The State provided expert testimony indicating that the seating arrangement was reasonable and consistent with industry standards, and that the absence of physical barriers was customary in basketball arenas. Shear failed to provide expert testimony to counter this claim, relying solely on her own assertions. The court concluded that the evidence supported the State's position, and thus there were no genuine issues of material fact.

In order to prove a public entity is liable for damages caused by a thing, the plaintiff must establish: (1) custody or ownership of the defective thing by the public entity; (2) the defect created an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the defect; (4) the public entity failed to take corrective action within a reasonable time; and (5) causation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, granting summary judgment in favor of the State and dismissing Shear's claims with prejudice.

Accordingly, we must reverse the judgment of the district court and grant summary judgment in favor of the State.

Who won?

The State of Louisiana prevailed in this case because the Supreme Court found that the seating configuration at the basketball arena was not unreasonably dangerous. The court determined that the State met its burden of proof by demonstrating that the seating arrangement was reasonable and aligned with industry standards, and that Shear failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged danger.

The motion for summary judgment filed by State of Louisiana through Louisiana Stadium Exposition District and SMG/Facility Management of Louisiana is granted, and the claims of Helena Shear against these defendants are dismissed with prejudice.

You must be