Romano v. Jazz Casino Company ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30554 Document: 00516263895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 1, 2022
No. 21-30554
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Cheryl Romano; Wayne Romano,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Jazz Casino Company, L.L.C.; JCC Holding Company II,
L.L.C.; Harrah's New Orleans Casino; Harrah's New
Orleans Management Company, L.L.C.; CEOC, L.L.C.;
Caesars License Company, L.L.C.; Caesars
Entertainment, Incorporated; Caesars Entertainment
Operating Company, Incorporated; Caesars Enterprise
Services, L.L.C.; Caesars Resort Collection, L.L.C.;
Paul Forcier; Nicholas Reece,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:20-cv-00228
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Case: 21-30554 Document: 00516263895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
No. 21-30554
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiffs in this case assert state-law claims arising out of a slip-and-
fall in a Louisiana casino. The district court granted summary judgment to
the defendants. We affirm.
I.
Cheryl Romano and her husband Wayne visited Harrah’s New
Orleans on January 25, 2019. While there, Mrs. Romano tripped on the
casino floor. She suffered serious injuries.
The Romanos sued the casino in Louisiana state court, asserting
claims of merchant liability, strict premises liability, and negligence.
Defendants removed to federal district court.
The district court reviewed security footage documenting the
incident. It concluded Mrs. Romano tripped over a vehicle display, which
was an open and obvious hazard. So the court held the Romanos failed to
create a genuine dispute regarding whether there was an unreasonable risk of
harm before the accident, and it granted summary judgment to defendants.
The Romanos timely appealed.
II.
Appellants argue the district court erred by granting summary
judgment to defendants. We review de novo a district court’s grant of
summary judgment, applying the same standards as the district court. Jones
v. New Orleans Regional Physician Hosp. Org., Inc., 981 F.3d 428, 432 (5th Cir.
2020). Summary judgment is warranted if the movant shows there is no
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 21-30554 Document: 00516263895 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
No. 21-30554
genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Under Louisiana law, the Romanos bear the burden to prove that a
condition on the casino’s premises “presented an unreasonable risk of
harm.” La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.6(B)(1). Louisiana’s courts consider
“the obviousness and apparentness of the condition” to determine whether
a condition presents such a risk. Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging Inc., 995
So. 2d 1184, 1186-87 (La. 2008). A defendant generally has no duty to protect
against obvious and apparent hazards. See id. at 1186.
Appellants contend they provided sufficient evidence to create a
genuine fact dispute as to the cause of Mrs. Romano’s fall. They say she
could have tripped over an unsecured electrical cord instead of the display
itself. And they point to two sources of evidence in support of that
contention: First is the security footage. Second is evidence of the cord’s
position after Mrs. Romano’s fall.
Neither source of evidence is sufficient to preclude summary
judgment. First, the security footage. Appellants argue a jury could conclude
from the video that Mrs. Romano tripped over a dangerously positioned
electrical cord. But the video shows that Mrs. Romano tripped over the
corner of the display itself. Moreover, there are no electrical cords or wires
visible in the video before Mrs. Romano’s fall. And in the moments before
the accident, the video shows several people passing by the left, front corner
of the vehicle display—the very same corner where Mrs. Romano fell—and
none of those other individuals stumble or step over any cords.
Second, appellants criticize the district court for ignoring other
evidence regarding the cord’s position. Specifically, appellants point to a
photograph taken by Mr. Romano after the accident, which shows the cord
lying outside the perimeter of the vehicle display, and testimony by Harrah’s
3
Case: 21-30554 Document: 00516263895 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
No. 21-30554
employees about that photograph. But all of this evidence is relevant only to
the cord’s position after the incident. None of appellants’ evidence supports
their assertion that the cord created a hazard before Mrs. Romano’s fall. And
“the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment,
after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails
to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at
trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
We agree with the district court that appellants have not carried their
summary-judgment burden. Appellants’ version of the facts is contradicted
by the video. And they presented no other evidence sufficient to create a
genuine issue of material fact regarding the cord’s position before the
accident. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing
parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the
record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt
that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary
judgment.”). Appellees were therefore entitled to summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
4