December 2023 - Parks & Recreation - 31

LAW REVIEW
park were not an unreasonably
dangerous condition. "
Foreseeability
Further, as described by the state supreme
court, a landowner can be held
liable for injury to an invitee caused
by an identified open and obvious
hazard if injuries caused by the hazard
are " foreseeable. " According to
the court, once such injuries are foreseeable,
the landowner would have a
legal duty to " eliminate the hazard. "
In this case, " if the sun-heated
concrete walkways only constituted
an open-and-obvious hazard, "
Hoskins had argued " the City still
had a duty to eliminate that hazard
if it was foreseeable that an invitee
would be injured by the harm despite
the 'warning' that an open-andobvious
hazard inherently provides. "
Accordingly, Hoskins argued " the
case should have been submitted
to the jury for determination of the
foreseeability of her injury. "
The state supreme court rejected
Plaintiff's argument. In so doing,
the state supreme court noted " the
trial court found the circumstances
of [Hoskins'] injury to be so unusual
and unique that the City could
not have anticipated her injury nor
could it have reasonably done more
to prevent her injury. " Moreover, the
court found Hoskins had provided
" no evidence that any previous patron
of the water park had sustained
injuries like hers as a result of walking
on its sun-heated walkways. "
According to the state supreme
" foreseeability
court,
the
of
[P]laintiff's injury " is generally a
question of fact to be considered by
a jury in determining " what was required
by the defendant in fulfilling
the applicable standard of care. "
That being said, the state supreme
court acknowledged summary
32 Parks & Recreation | DECEMBER 2 0 2 3
judgment on the question of liability
would be appropriate " when a
hazard cannot be corrected by any
means or when it is beyond dispute
that the landowner had done all
that was reasonable. " In this particular
instance, the state supreme
court agreed with the trial court
that " [Hoskins'] injuries were not
foreseeable to the City, and thus the
City had no duty to eliminate the
allegedly dangerous condition " :
Hoskins produced no evidence of
any feasible means the City could
have undertaken to lessen the alleged
risk created by heat radiating
from sidewalks warmed by the
summer sun. She did not produce
any evidence that the City acted
outside of industry standard practices.
And she did not provide any
evidence why the City would anticipate
injuries like hers to take place.
Conclusion
As characterized by the state
supreme court, " this to be a rare
circumstance in which a plaintiff
provided no evidence of the existence
of an unreasonably dangerous
condition such that summary judgment
was appropriate. " Accordingly,
the state supreme court reversed the
court of appeals on Hoskins' premises-liability
claim and reinstated
the trial court's grant of summary
judgment in favor of the City:
We agree with the trial court
that no reasonable jury could find
the sun-heated walkways at the
water park constituted an unreasonably
dangerous condition and
that [Hoskins'] injury was so unforeseeable
that the City could not
have reasonably done more to prevent
her injury.
Jogger Golf Ball Injury
The case of McGuire v. New Orleans
| PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
City Park Improvement Association, 835
So. 2d 416 (La. 1/14/2003) posed
a similar situation. In this case, the
issue before the Supreme Court of
Louisiana was whether the operators
and insurers of a city park golf
course owed a legal duty to provide
protection or warnings of an " unreasonable
risk of harm " to non-golfers
jogging near a golf course.
Facts of the Case
On April 25, 1994, Plaintiff Robert
McGuire (Plaintiff), and two of his
friends were jogging on Palm Drive
in New Orleans City Park near the
Bayou Oaks Little Course. As they
were jogging on Palm Drive, a golf
ball landed on the roadway in front
of Plaintiff then bounced and struck
him in the groin area, causing his
right testicle to rupture. As a result
of the injury, Plaintiff had surgery
and a portion of his right testicle
was removed.
New Orleans City Park covers
1,500 acres of land and is the fifth
largest urban park in the United
States. It has four golf courses,
with 22 miles of unrestricted public
roadways, which is surrounded by
golf tees and greens on both sides.
On October 20, 1994, Plaintiff
filed suit against the New Orleans
City Park Improvement Association,
the operators of the golf
course, and its insurer (City Park)
for damages. In so doing, Plaintiff
alleged " the City Park breached
its duties: to warn non-golfers on
Palm Drive of the danger of golf
balls, to configure the golf course
so that a danger was not created
for
non-golfers on Palm Drive,
and to provide a protective barrier
between the golf course and Palm
Drive. In response, City Park filed a
motion for summary judgment that
asserted the following:
December 2023 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of December 2023 - Parks & Recreation
