## Facts

- Frederick Walker, a Herring Gas Company employee, injured his back when he stepped into a hole on the property while delivering gas to the residence occupied by Kathy Holt and her husband.
- The Holt residence was subject to divided ownership and use rights: Graham L. Smith, Sr. owned an undivided one-half interest in the property and was the usufructuary of the other one-half.
- Kathy Holt, Elizabeth Smith Distefano, Anita Smith Campo, and Graham L. Smith, Jr. were naked owners of undivided one-twelfth interests in the property pursuant to a prior judgment of possession.
- Walker and his wife sued multiple defendants, including the Holts, Smith, Sr., and several siblings (including Distefano, Campo, and Smith, Jr.) seeking tort damages for Walker’s injury.
- Zurich North America Insurance Company, Herring’s workers’ compensation insurer, filed a separate suit against the same defendants to recover indemnity benefits and medical expenses it paid because of Walker’s injury; the suits were consolidated.
- Distefano, Campo, and Smith, Jr. (nonresident siblings) moved for summary judgment, arguing that as naked owners they had no possession or control of the premises, no duty to inspect or maintain it, and no knowledge of the alleged defect.
- The trial court initially denied summary judgment, but on reconsideration granted summary judgment in favor of Distefano, Campo, and Smith, Jr., and dismissed the claims against them and their insurer, Allstate.
- Zurich and the Walkers appealed, but the Walkers’ appeal was dismissed for failure to timely file a brief, leaving only Zurich’s appeal for review.

## Issues

1. Whether nonresident naked owners of a property owe a tort duty to inspect, maintain, or repair an alleged ordinary defect (a hole in the ground) when a usufructuary holds the right of use and enjoyment of the property.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record raised a genuine issue of material fact that the naked owners had control of the premises or actual/constructive knowledge of the defect sufficient to impose liability.

## Decision

- The court reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo under the same criteria applicable in the trial court.
- The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Elizabeth Smith Distefano, Anita Smith Campo, and Graham L. Smith, Jr., and affirmed dismissal of Zurich’s claims against them and Allstate.
- The court held the alleged hole constituted an ordinary maintenance/repair matter allocated by Louisiana Civil Code arts. 577–578 to the usufructuary, not to naked owners.
- The court found the nonresident naked owners lacked possession and control of the premises and that Zurich failed to produce evidence creating a factual dispute that they knew or should have known of the defect.
- Because Zurich could not establish an actionable duty on these facts, no triable issue remained as to liability of the naked owners and their insurer.

## Legal Principles

- Under Louisiana Civil Code arts. 577 and 578, the usufructuary bears responsibility for ordinary maintenance and repairs; the naked owner’s responsibilities are limited and do not include day-to-day upkeep during the usufruct.
- The naked owner must not interfere with the usufructuary’s rights of use and enjoyment (including possession and control) during the usufruct.
- Premises-liability duty analysis turns on responsibility for maintenance and the ability to prevent harm; owners without possession or control generally do not owe a duty to inspect for ordinary defects tied to routine upkeep.
- Summary judgment is proper when the moving party shows an absence of factual support for an essential element of the opponent’s claim (such as duty, control, or knowledge) and the opponent fails to produce evidence establishing a genuine issue for trial.
- In this setting, lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the defect, combined with lack of control and Civil Code allocation of ordinary repairs to the usufructuary, defeats tort liability for the naked owners as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the nonresident naked-owner siblings and their insurer because Louisiana’s usufruct rules placed ordinary repair and maintenance obligations on the usufructuary, and the record showed the naked owners neither controlled the premises nor had actual or constructive knowledge of the hole that injured Walker.


Walker v. Holt, 888 So. 2d 255 (2004)