Magri v. Jazz Casino Co., L.L.C.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
275 So. 3d 352 (2019)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
In January 2012, Irvin Magri (plaintiff) visited Harrah’s New Orleans Casino (Harrah’s) (defendant). Magri was sitting at a blackjack table with his left foot resting on an adjacent empty stool. Harrah’s employee Nakeisha McCormick was instructed to empty a trash can near where Magri was sitting. McCormick moved the stool on which Magri’s foot was resting, causing Magri’s foot and ankle to twist. Magri sued Harrah’s and Harrah’s’ owner, Jazz Casino Company, L.L.C. (Jazz) (defendant), asserting negligence claims. At a bench trial, Magri testified that Harrah’s patrons commonly rested their feet on adjacent stools. Magri further testified that McCormick had yanked the stool multiple times and that he had yelled after each yank. After the final yank, Magri felt pain in his left knee and ankle. Magri admitted that he had not sought permission to put his foot on the stool and had not told McCormick or anyone at the blackjack table that his foot was on the stool. McCormick testified that the space between blackjack tables was narrow and that she moved the stool to access the trash can. McCormick testified that she had not seen Magri’s foot on the stool and had not looked to see whether there were any impediments to moving the stool. The trial court found for Magri and awarded him nearly $602,000. The court allocated 70 percent of the fault for the incident to Harrah’s and 30 percent to Magri. Jazz appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jenkins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.