Stelly v. United States , 71 F. App'x 326 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    In the                                 August 4, 2003
    United States Court of Appeals                            Charles R. Fulbruge III
    for the Fifth Circuit                                Clerk
    _______________
    No. 03-30179
    Summary Calendar
    _______________
    ALFRED STELLY,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    VERSUS
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    _________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    (01-CV-2365)
    _________________________
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH,                   Alfred Stelly appeals an adverse summary
    Circuit Judges.                                     judgment on his negligence claim against the
    United States under the Federal Tort Claims
    PER CURIAM:*                                          Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80
    (“FTCA”). We affirm.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has
    *
    determined that this opinion should not be                (...continued)
    published and is not precedent except under the       limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
    (continued...)    47.5.4.
    I.                                that the defendant owed a duty to protect him
    The Sabine National Wildlife Refuge is                from the type of injury sustained.1 Because
    owned by the United States and administered              the highway and shoulder are owned and
    by the Fish and Wildlife Service, an agency              maintained by the state, the district court prop-
    within the Department of Interior. Members               erly concluded that Louisiana and not the
    of the public are permitted access to the                United States had a duty to keep them in a safe
    wildlife refuge, and permitted to engage in              condition.2
    recreational fishing, both without charge. The
    State of Louisiana owns a right-of-way                       Stelly concedes that a property owner is
    through the refuge on which it built a state             generally not liable for injuries arising out of a
    highway. The Louisiana Department of Trans-              defect in property adjoining his own unless he
    portation is responsible for repair and                  is responsible for the defect. Arata v. Orleans
    maintenance of the highway and its shoulder.             Capitol Stores, 
    55 So. 2d 239
    , 244 (La. 1951).
    Stelly argues, however, that Louisiana law
    Stelly arrived at the refuge intending to go         imposes a duty on property owners where they
    fishing in a canal bordered by the highway.              know of a dangerous condition on neighboring
    After parking his car, he walked across the              property; the neighboring property is used for
    highway and down the shoulder’s short                    access to their own; and the condition poses a
    embankment to reach the canal, as he had done            threat to the safety of their invitees.3
    on previous occasions. He slipped on loose
    gravel and fell, breaking his ankle and injuring            A property owner is not, however, an insur-
    his back and hip. He sued, alleging that the             er of an invitee’s safety.4 Accordingly, a
    negligence of the United States caused his
    injuries.                                                   1
    See Syrie v. Schilhab, 
    693 So. 2d 1173
    , 1176-
    II.                               77 (La. 1997); Socorro v. City of New Orleans,
    
    579 So. 2d 931
    , 938-39 (La. 1991).
    “We review de novo a grant or denial of
    summary judgment, applying the same                         2
    See Breshers v. Louisiana Dep’t of Transp. &
    standard as did the district court.” Faris v.            Dev., 
    536 So. 2d 733
    , 736-37 (La. App. 3d Cir.
    Williams WPC-I, Inc., 
    332 F.3d 316
    , 319 (5th             1988), cert. denied, 
    541 So. 2d 854
    (La.), and
    Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).                 cert. denied, 
    541 So. 2d 856
    (La. 1969); Wall v.
    Summary judgment is proper where “there is               Am. Employers Ins. Co., 
    215 So. 2d 913
    , 916 (La.
    no genuine issue as to any material fact and the         App. 1st Cir.), cert. denied, 
    217 So. 2d 415
    (La.
    moving party is entitled to a judgment as a              1969).
    matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).                      3
    Hammons v. City of Tallulah, 705 So. 2d
    Under the FTCA, the United States is liable           276, 281-82 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1997), writ denied,
    
    716 So. 2d 892
    (La.), and writ denied, 716 So. 2d
    for the torts of its employees to the same ex-
    894 (La. 1998); see also Cothern v. LaRocca, 232
    tent as a private party would be according to            So. 2d 743 (La. 1970); Lancles v. Tomlinson, 351
    the law of the state where the tort occurred.            So. 2d 1218, 1223 (La. App. 3d Cir.), cert. denied,
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2674. Louisiana law             
    352 So. 2d 1023
    (La. 1977).
    requires the plaintiff, in a personal injury suit,
    to prove, as an essential element of his claim,             4
    Levert v. Traverlers Indem. Co., 140 So. 2d
    (continued...)
    2
    landowner has no duty to warn of a potentially
    dangerous condition that “should have been
    observed by an individual in the exercise of
    reasonable care or which was as obvious to a
    visitor as to the landowner.” Shelton v. Aetna
    Cas. & Sur. Co., 
    334 So. 2d 406
    , 410-11 (La.
    1976). The loose gravel on the embankment
    where Stelly slipped was readily observable,
    and the risk of walking on it would have been
    obvious to a reasonably prudent person. Con-
    sequently, the condition of the shoulder did
    not give rise to a duty to warn.
    Because Stelly has failed to identify a duty
    on the part of the United States to protect him
    from the injury he sustained, summary
    judgment was proper.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    (...continued)
    811, 813 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1962) (“[A]n invitee
    assumes all normally observable or ordinary risks
    attendant upon the use of the premises.”).
    3