Kluttz et al v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., No. 2:2022cv03427 - Document 28 (E.D. La. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Cracker Barrel's motion for summary judgment (R. Doc. 22 ) isDENIED. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 4/23/2024. (cs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kluttz et al v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CECIL M. KLUTTZ, JR., et al. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 22-3427 CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC. SECTION M (2) ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment1 filed by defendant Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (“Cracker Barrel”), arguing that plaintiffs Cecil M. Kluttz, Jr., and Gayle Kluttz, who allege Mr. Kluttz was injured in a trip-and-fall incident in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel restaurant, cannot establish that: (1) a negligent act of Cracker Barrel, viz., constructing its sidewalk to lead directly to a flower bed, caused Mr. Kluttz’s injuries;2 (2) Cracker Barrel had actual knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition and failed to warn plaintiffs, arguing that the sidewalk is not unreasonably dangerous since “landscaping is entirely normal and a feature which customers would normally expect to encounter on a restaurant’s premises”;3 or (3) the alleged dangerous condition existed for a sufficient amount of time to impute constructive knowledge to Cracker Barrel, arguing that there is no evidence of “any past history of customers tripping and falling in this area of landscaping” and reiterating that the sidewalk does not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition.4 Plaintiffs respond in opposition, pointing to summaryjudgment evidence they say establishes that Cracker Barrel created the alleged unreasonably dangerous condition at issue (viz., “the deviation in the plans and specs that created a hazardous 1 R. Doc. 22. R. Doc. 22-1 at 3-5. 3 Id. at 4-5. 4 Id. at 5-6. 2 Dockets.Justia.com pathway leading patrons directly into a garden”) and failed to remedy it, and that the condition was not “open and obvious.”5 Having considered the parties’ memoranda and the evidence presented, the Court finds that there are disputed issues of material fact regarding whether Cracker Barrel created an unreasonably dangerous condition (including whether the particular hazard was open and obvious) that preclude summary judgment in Cracker Barrel’s favor. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Cracker Barrel’s motion for summary judgment (R. Doc. 22) is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of April, 2024. ________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 R. Doc. 23.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
