## Facts

- Twelve-year-old David Hunt was injured on May 27, 1976 while descending an escalator at Maison Blanche, a department store operated by City Stores, Inc., in New Orleans.
- His right tennis shoe was caught between the moving tread and the escalator’s left side panel, causing injury.
- No witness could explain precisely how the shoe became lodged, and there was no evidence the child was misbehaving or deliberately placing his foot into the side opening.
- City Stores had exclusive possession and day-to-day control of the escalator during store operations.
- Otis Elevator Company designed, manufactured, installed, and serviced the escalator.
- Evidence showed Otis knew of recurring incidents involving children’s tennis shoes being caught in escalators.
- Otis provided only an inconspicuous warning cautioning against bare feet and did not warn of the known hazard to children wearing tennis shoes.
- The trial court awarded the plaintiff $5,184 against City Stores and its insurer, dismissed claims against Otis and its insurer, and dismissed City Stores’ third-party demand for contribution/indemnity against Otis.

## Issues

1. Whether City Stores, as custodian of the escalator, was strictly liable under Louisiana Civil Code article 2317 for harm caused by a defective thing in its custody.
2. Whether Otis, as manufacturer, was liable under strict products liability principles for placing an unreasonably dangerous escalator into commerce and for failing to warn of known dangers.
3. Whether City Stores and its insurer were entitled to contribution and/or indemnity from Otis and its insurer based on the manufacturer’s liability.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that City Stores was liable to the plaintiff under Civil Code article 2317 as custodian of a defective escalator creating an unreasonable risk of harm during ordinary, foreseeable use.
- The court held Otis was also liable under strict products liability principles because the escalator was unreasonably dangerous in normal use and Otis failed to provide adequate warnings despite knowledge of the specific hazard.
- The court reversed the dismissal of the claims against Otis and its insurer and reversed the dismissal of City Stores’ third-party demand, recognizing City Stores’ right to recover over from Otis for contribution/indemnity.

## Legal Principles

- Under Louisiana Civil Code article 2317, a party with custody and control of a thing is responsible for damage caused by a defect that creates an unreasonable risk of harm, without requiring proof of negligence.
- A product is defective and unreasonably dangerous when it causes injury in normal, foreseeable use and the risk is not adequately prevented or warned against.
- A manufacturer with knowledge of a recurring, foreseeable hazard must provide warnings reasonably calculated to alert expected users; generic or poorly targeted warnings may be inadequate.
- Custodian strict liability and manufacturer strict products liability may coexist for the same injury, supporting allocation of loss through contribution and/or indemnity between responsible parties.

## Conclusion

The court imposed strict liability on both the store as custodian of a defective escalator and the manufacturer for an unreasonably dangerous product and inadequate warnings, and it allowed the store and its insurer to seek contribution/indemnity from the manufacturer and its insurer.


Hunt v. City Stores, Inc., 387 So. 2d 585 (La. 1980)