## Facts

- The State of Louisiana owned and operated the Wooddale Tower, a multi-story office building in Baton Rouge.
- Paul Broussard, a UPS delivery driver who delivered to the building regularly, used the building’s elevators in the course of his work.
- The elevators had a history of stopping between floors, and the State had received complaints and had notice that people had tripped when entering or exiting.
- During a delivery, Broussard attempted to move a dolly carrying roughly 300 pounds of packages into an elevator that stopped about one to three inches above the floor level.
- Broussard lost control of the heavily loaded dolly due to the misalignment and suffered serious injuries.
- A jury found the condition created an unreasonable risk of harm, allocated 38% comparative fault to Broussard, and awarded damages (reduced for fault); the trial court entered judgment for Broussard.
- The court of appeal reversed, finding the defect open and obvious and concluding the jury’s unreasonable-risk determination was manifestly erroneous.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeal, applying manifest-error review, improperly displaced the jury’s factual finding that the elevator misalignment created an unreasonable risk of harm.
2. Whether the elevator’s misalignment should have been treated as an open and obvious condition negating duty as a matter of law, rather than a condition evaluated under the risk–utility framework with comparative fault.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal.
- The Court held the jury’s finding that the misaligned elevator created an unreasonable risk of harm was not manifestly erroneous.
- The Court reinstated the trial court’s judgment based on the jury verdict, including the comparative-fault allocation and reduced damages award.
- The Court concluded the record provided a reasonable factual basis for finding the State breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition by failing to remedy the defect or warn of it.

## Legal Principles

- Under manifest-error (clearly wrong) review, an appellate court may not disturb a fact-finder’s determinations when the record provides a reasonable factual basis for the findings, even if the appellate court would have weighed evidence differently.
- In premises-liability analysis, whether a condition is “open and obvious” is considered within the risk–utility/unreasonable-risk inquiry and does not automatically negate duty as a matter of law in every case.
- A plaintiff’s awareness of a hazard may be addressed through comparative fault rather than serving as a complete bar to recovery when the fact-finder reasonably concludes the condition remains unreasonably dangerous.
- A property owner’s notice of a recurring hazardous condition supports a finding of breach when the owner fails to repair or warn.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated the jury’s verdict, holding that the evidence reasonably supported a finding that a 1.5–3 inch elevator-floor misalignment in a state building created an unreasonable risk of harm and that the court of appeal exceeded manifest-error limits by reclassifying the condition as open and obvious as a matter of law.


Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So. 3d 175 (La. 2013)