## Facts

- Vernon Sanders owned a nine-acre property in Columbia, Louisiana, with a man-made pond used for fishing and swimming.
- On June 13, 1992, Sanders and his wife were away; their 18-year-old son hosted a gathering that grew to roughly 20–30 people.
- Many guests swam in the pond, including 19-year-old Robert Wiley.
- After midnight, guests noticed Robert was missing; his body was found in the pond the next morning. He apparently drowned.
- Robert voluntarily entered the water, appeared fine at first, and evidence suggested he may not have been able to swim.
- The plaintiff alleged the pond was unreasonably dangerous due to conditions such as slippery banks, drop-offs, a muddy bottom, depth changes, lack of safety equipment, and poor lighting, and alleged negligent failure to supervise and warn.
- Evidence showed the pond had been used for swimming and fishing without prior accidents and lacked proof of a hidden hazard or trap.

## Issues

1. Whether the pond constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition supporting liability under Louisiana Civil Code arts. 2315 (negligence) and 2317 (pre-1996 strict liability).
2. Whether the landowner owed, and breached, a duty to warn or protect against the risk of drowning in the pond.
3. Whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, a directed verdict for defendants was proper under La. C.C.P. art. 1810.

## Decision

- The court of appeal affirmed the directed verdict for Vernon Sanders and State Farm.
- The pond was not an unreasonably dangerous condition; its risks were those ordinarily associated with bodies of water.
- Because the drowning risk was open and obvious, Sanders owed no duty to warn Robert of that risk or take special protective measures absent proof of a concealed danger.
- Plaintiff presented no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find negligence or strict liability; the evidence pointed overwhelmingly in defendants’ favor.

## Legal Principles

- Under Louisiana negligence (art. 2315) and pre-1996 strict liability (former art. 2317), a plaintiff must prove the condition created an unreasonable risk of harm; without an unreasonably dangerous condition, both theories fail.
- A landowner generally has no duty to protect against or warn of hazards that are open and obvious to a reasonable person; bodies of water ordinarily present obvious drowning risks.
- A directed verdict is warranted when, even taking the evidence and reasonable inferences in the non-movant’s favor, no reasonable factfinder could find for that party under La. C.C.P. art. 1810.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a directed verdict for the landowner and insurer because the pond posed an open and obvious drowning risk and the plaintiff failed to show a hidden defect or other condition making the pond unreasonably dangerous or establishing a breached duty.


Wiley v. Sanders, 850 So. 2d 771 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003)