## Facts

- In January 2012, Irvin Magri, Jr. visited Harrah’s New Orleans Casino.
- Magri sat on a high stool at a blackjack table with an “empty” stool immediately to his left.
- Magri rested his left foot/ankle on the lower rung of the adjacent stool while he played; he testified that patrons commonly rested their feet on nearby stools.
- A pit boss instructed casino employee Nakeisha McCormick to empty a trash can located in the narrow space between blackjack tables near where Magri was seated.
- To access the trash can, McCormick moved the stool on which Magri’s foot was resting.
- Magri testified that McCormick “yanked” the stool multiple times; Magri said he yelled after each pull, and after the final pull he felt pain in his left knee and ankle.
- Magri admitted he did not ask permission to place his foot on the stool and did not tell McCormick, the dealer, or anyone at the table that his foot was on it.
- McCormick testified she did not see Magri’s foot on the stool and did not look to see whether anything impeded moving it; she also described the tight space between tables.
- Harrah’s employees provided immediate assistance after the incident (including ice and wrapping).
- Magri sued Harrah’s and its owner, Jazz Casino Company, L.L.C., asserting negligence theories including failure to use reasonable care, failure to warn, and failure to train employees.
- After a bench trial, the district court ruled for Magri and awarded nearly $602,000, allocating 70% fault to Harrah’s and 30% fault to Magri.
- Jazz/Harrah’s appealed, challenging duty, breach, scope of duty (legal cause), comparative fault, and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Harrah’s/Jazz owed Magri a duty of reasonable care when an employee moved an adjacent stool in close proximity to a seated patron, despite the argument that the risk of a movable stool was open and obvious.
2. Whether the employee breached the duty of reasonable care by moving the stool without first checking for impediments (including a patron’s foot) in a crowded, narrow area.
3. Whether Magri’s twisting injury was within the scope of the duty (legal cause) under Louisiana’s duty–risk analysis.
4. Whether the trial court’s allocation of 70% fault to Harrah’s and 30% to Magri was manifestly erroneous.
5. Whether the damages award, as reduced for comparative fault, reflected an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held that Harrah’s owed Magri a duty of reasonable care in the gaming area, including when employees move furniture near seated patrons.
- The court found no manifest error in the trial court’s conclusion that Harrah’s breached its duty where the employee moved the stool without looking to determine whether anything prevented safe movement.
- The court rejected the argument that the “open and obvious” nature of an empty stool being movable eliminated duty in these circumstances.
- The court held the particular harm—Magri’s foot/ankle twisting and resulting injury—fell within the scope of Harrah’s duty because the risk of harming a nearby patron by moving a stool in tight quarters was reasonably foreseeable, especially given testimony that patrons often rested feet on adjacent stools.
- The court upheld the comparative-fault split (70% Harrah’s / 30% Magri), concluding the allocation was not clearly wrong.
- The court also affirmed the damages award (approximately $601,689.31 after the 30% reduction).

## Legal Principles

- Louisiana negligence claims are evaluated under the duty–risk framework: duty, breach, cause-in-fact, scope of duty (legal cause), and damages.
- A premises operator owes patrons a duty of reasonable care in the operation of the premises, including employee conduct that can create hazards in congested patron areas.
- “Open and obvious” arguments may bear on whether a condition presents an unreasonable risk and whether a duty is owed in a given setting, but do not automatically defeat a duty where the operator’s affirmative conduct creates a foreseeable risk of injury.
- Scope of duty (legal cause) asks whether the specific harm is among the risks that made the conduct unreasonable and whether the risk was reasonably foreseeable.
- Appellate review of factual findings (including breach and fault allocation) is deferential under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard; where the factfinder’s view of the evidence is reasonable, it will not be disturbed.
- Comparative fault may be assigned to a plaintiff whose actions contributed to the injury, even when the defendant’s employee is the primary actor creating the immediate hazard.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed a bench-trial judgment holding Harrah’s/Jazz liable for injuries suffered when an employee moved an adjacent stool on which a blackjack patron had placed his foot, concluding the casino owed and breached a duty of reasonable care, the injury fell within the scope of that duty, the 70/30 comparative-fault allocation was not clearly wrong, and the reduced damages award of about $601,689.31 stood.


Magri v. Jazz Casino Co., L.L.C., 275 So. 3d 352 (2019)