Louisiana courts also recognize that grounds adjacent to a sidewalk, which are not intended to be used as a walkway, are not “expected to have a completely ‘table-top' smooth surface.” Wood v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 486 So.2d 1129, 1133 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1986).
Because the lessor guarantees the lessee against all vices and defects, not merely the apparent defects, the lessor who fails to fulfill this duty is held strictly liable. Gallagher v. Favrot, 499 So.2d 1205 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1986), writ den., 503 So.2d 23 (La. 1987); Wood v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 486 So.2d 1129 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1986); Comments, Landlord Liability — Obligation to Maintain Adequate Security — A Comparative Study, 59 Tul.L.Rev. 701, 732 (1985). The duty is owed by the lessor strictly to the tenant.
The court rejected a reduction of recovery in this case because it found no fault by the plaintiff. In Wood v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 486 So.2d 1129 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1986), the fault of the plaintiff was found the sole cause of a trip-and-fall accident. The plaintiff sued his landlord following his fall in a depression caused by a rotting tree stump.
A premises defect must be of such a nature as to constitute a dangerous condition that would reasonably be expected to cause injury to a prudent person using ordinary care under the circumstances. In Wood v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company , [486 So.2d 1129, 1133 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1986) ], the court set forth the standard applicable to a residence yard:The yard of a residence is not intended or expected to have a completely "table-top" smooth surface.
4 Cir.), writ denied. 526 So.2d 800 (La. 1988) (wherein a pedestrian's conduct was found substandard, when she tripped over a pothole in the street she was crossing, when inclement weather at the time of the incident was enough to put an ordinarily prudent person on notice that she would have to watch her step, and when she did not cross the street at the corner); Wood v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 486 So.2d 1129 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1986) (holding that a trial court was not clearly wrong in finding a hole, approximately six inches deep and two feet across, located on residential property that was rented by the plaintiff, did not create an unreasonable risk of harm); Carr v. City of Covington, 477 So.2d 1202 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985), writ denied. 481 So.2d 631 (La. 1986) (in which it was held that a pothole, about twelve inches in diameter and from one inch to two inches deep, in a street, did not present an unreasonable risk of injury, where plaintiff's conduct was substandard in not watching his step); and Stone v. Trade-Mark Homes, Inc., 431 So.2d 61 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1983) (wherein it was held that a cup-shaped hole, seven inches in diameter by three inches deep, on a vacant lot, did not create an unreasonable risk of harm).
Also, the defendants contend that they did not create any condition of leaves covering the stumps or have notice of the same. In Wood v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 486 So.2d 1129 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1986), this court observed: The yard of a residence is not intended or expected to have a completely "table-top" smooth surface.
Similarly, in Maples v. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 567 So.2d 1178 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990), the Third Circuit held that ruts in an unimproved driveway did not constitute an unreasonable risk of harm. In Wood v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 486 So.2d 1129 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1986), the Second Circuit found that a hole approximately six inches deep and two feet across on residential property did not create an unreasonable risk of harm. Finally, in Stone v. Trade-Mark Homes, Inc., 431 So.2d 61 (La.App.
While a landowner has an obligation to maintain lawns and other grassy areas, that obligation does not require a "table-top" smooth surface. Wood v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (La.App. 2 Cir. 1986), 486 So.2d 1129. It is inherent in grassy areas that are not intended or designed for use as a walkway, that they present minor hazards such as uneven ground or holes which could cause a person to trip and fall.
" Johnson v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 32,770 (La.App. 2d Cir. 03/01/00), 754 So.2d 346, writ denied, 2000-0938 (La. 05/26/00), 762 So.2d 1107. Moreover, this court recognized in Wood v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 486 So.2d 1129, 1133 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1986) that: The yard of a residence is not intended or expected to have a completely "table-top" smooth surface.
Lee v. Magnolia Garden Apts., 96-1328, p. 14 (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/9/97), 694 So.2d 1142, 1150, writ denied, 97-1544 (La. 9/26/97), 701 So.2d 990. 486 So.2d 1129, 1133 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1986). The yard of a residence is not intended or expected to have a completely "table-top" smooth surface.