Norma Jean Trayanoff v. OMNI Hotels Management Corporation and Royal O Real Estate Holdings, LLC

New Orleans, Louisiana personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a premises liability theory.

This lawsuit arises out of a slip and fall that occurred on or about December 12, 2021. According to the petition, Plaintiff fell as she was descending a set of stairs in Touché Bar, a bar adjoining the Omni Royal Hotel and located at 621 St. Louis Street. At the time of the incident, the property was owned by Royal O Real Estate Holdings, LLC, and operated by Omni Hotels Management Corporation.



As a result of the alleged injuries sustained, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants on December 9, 2022, alleging they were negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting; in failing to provide sufficient railing for the stairs; in failing to place signage to warn of the stairs turning, and other acts of negligence.



On November 21, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot establish that the steps were defective or that Defendants had any knowledge of the alleged defect. Defendants also claimed that Plaintiff failed to see the open and obvious steps in her path. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Defendants submitted the petition for damages, excerpts from the deposition of Plaintiff; and surveillance video of the incident.



In her deposition, Plaintiff testified that on the day of the incident she attended a Christmas brunch at the hotel with a group called New Orleans Women and Wine. She stated that she had about two mimosas at brunch and afterwards walked to a nearby bar with a group of friends but it was closed. Plaintiff and her friends then proceeded to Touché Bar. Upon entering the establishment, Plaintiff observed her friends going down stairs to a lower level of the bar and followed them. She estimated that there were eight to ten steps total. Plaintiff testified that she walked down a few steps and observed that there was left turn, a landing area with a wrought iron rail, and then additional steps. Plaintiff noted that the railing across the landing prevented her from continuing straight and caused her to turn. She stated that railing continued down the side of the stairs. Plaintiff said she tripped near the bottom of the stairs and went "flying." The transcript provides:



So as I'm going down the left side, where the rail is, when I get to the bottom step, one more step, and I'm flying. I didn't even know there was more steps, because you can't see that until you make that turn. And as I step off the last step of the ones going straight down, my next step sent me flying.



Plaintiff stated that she did not attempt to grab the railing next to the stairs because "there was no shot at that. I was already flying... I just went stumbling down the[] steps." Plaintiff testified that the lighting was very dim and that it "looked like a dungeon down there." When questioned about the specific lights contained in photographs near the location of the fall, Plaintiff stated that the lights were not turned on. However, when questioned about whether she saw "anything in front of [her] as [she] was going down, once [she] turned left to step forward," Plaintiff answered that she "saw the room."



After observing the surveillance video at her deposition, Plaintiff admitted that the video showed that the lights were on but maintained that it was still "really dim down there." She noted that before she fell, she had placed her right foot at the edge of the step, and her left foot was "trying to find its place." Plaintiff acknowledged that the handrail was within reach but did not use it. She explained: "I was just taking a step, not knowing I was going down steps." Plaintiff further stated that when her foot hit the step, she stumbled forward "because she didn't know she was going down steps."



The surveillance video depicted Plaintiff as she reached the landing of the stairs and began to turn left. Plaintiff used her left foot to step on the landing, turned slightly, and then stepped with her right foot. Plaintiff took a step with her left foot towards the stair, then stumbled, and fell forward. Plaintiff had her right hand free but did not use the railing as she traversed the stairs.



Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment on January 23, 2024, arguing that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the stairs and handrail pose an unreasonable risk of harm and whether Defendants knew or should have known of the defect. In opposition, Plaintiff submitted the

affidavit of Donald A. Maginnis III, a licensed architect, which included a copy of his expert report; and a portion of Plaintiff's deposition.



In his affidavit and expert report, Maginnis stated that the last tread that Plaintiff stepped on is only ten inches deep, instead of the required eleven inches deep, is "too small for safe step," and violated NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 101 7.2.2.2.1 (a), IBC (International Building Code) 1009.7.2, and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) 4.9.2.



He further noted that the stairs violated 1949 NOBC (New Orleans Building Code) 3302, NFPA 101 7.2.2.3.6.1, NFPA 101 7.2.2.3.6.2, IBC 1009.32 and ADAAG (ADA Accessibility Guidelines) 4.9.2 because the treads vary from ten to eleven inches and the risers vary from 8.5 to 5.5 inches.



Maginnis also attested that the handrails violated NOBC 3305, IBC 1009.15,1012.2,1012.4, NFPA 101 5-2.23.4.3,101-5.2.4.5(a) and ADA 4.9.4 because: "the wall mounted handrail on the left side descending is too low and not graspable[;]" "there are no handrails or extensions on the right side upper and left side lower walls contrary to all codes[;]" "there are no handrails and extensions on the landing and the lower run, the decorative guardrail is too high and does not meet any codes as guardrails." He stated that the two short stair flights are covered in different materials, textures, and colors, which is visually confusing and violated NFPA 101 7.2.2 of the building code.



Maginnis opined that the stairs and handrail constituted an unreasonable risk of harm and unreasonably dangerous condition. He further opined:



[T]he accident occurred because of the many code related dimensional problems in the risers and treads. In addition, there were issues with the visual confusion in the materials and textures of the walking surfaces, especially at the lower run and landing. The injury probably occurred because of the lack of proper handrails and



extensions, making it difficult for the plaintiff to brace herself and stop her fall.



Maginnis also stated that "had the steps been maintained to code properly and the same materials used throughout the stairs, and had the handrails been properly engineered and constructed, the accident and injury probably would not have occurred."



The motion for summary judgment came for hearing before the trial court on February 8, 2024, and the trial court granted the motion from the bench. The trial court stated, in part:



I will grant the motion -- defendant's motion for summary judgment because I do not see that a minor deficiency constitutes an unreasonably dangerous condition.



The trial court executed the judgment on February 27, 2024. Plaintiff timely appealed.



* * *



TORT LAW. PREMISES LIABILITY. The case examines an appeal against a summary judgment favoring the defendants in a slip-and-fall lawsuit, where the plaintiff alleged that a defect in a hotel bar's stairway created an unreasonable risk of harm.



CIVIL PROCEDURE. SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The court considered whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment by assessing if genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the reasonable safety of a stairway and whether the defendants had knowledge of its defective condition.



Key Phrases Slip and fall. Motion for summary judgment. Unreasonably dangerous condition. Building code violations. Premises liability.

Resolving all doubt in favor of Plaintiff and a trial on the merits, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the condition of the stairs created an unreasonable risk of harm and whether Defendants knew or should have known of the defective condition. The trial court thus erred in granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of Defendants. For these and the above stated reasons, the trial court's judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.



REVERSED AND REMANDED