Judge Rosemary Ledet.

This is a personal injury suit arising out of a slip and fall in an unlit, unfinished, wet attic of a house. The plaintiff, Glenn Jones, commenced this suit against two groups of defendants: (i) the "Homeowner Defendants" — the homeowner, Tammy Stewart; and Ms. Stewart's insurer, Access Home Insurance Company; and (ii) The "Contractor Defendants" — the seller of the new, leaking roof on Ms. Stewart's house, Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc. ("SHIP"); the installer of the roof, Magnolia Roofing and Exteriors, Inc. ("Magnolia"); and the inspector of the roof, Crawford & Company, doing business as Strategic Warranty Services ("Crawford"). From the trial court's judgment granting the Contractor Defendants' motions for summary judgment and denying Mr. Jones' motion for new trial, Mr. Jones appeals.1 One of the Contractor Defendants, Magnolia, answered the appeal. For the reasons that follow, we decline the relief requested in Magnolia's answer, reverse the trial court's judgment, and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 19, 2011, Ms. Stewart contracted with SHIP to replace the roof on her house located at 4611 Lennox Boulevard in New Orleans, Louisiana. Shortly thereafter, SHIP's subcontractor, Magnolia, installed the new roof. On September 30, 2011, Ms. Stewart signed a Certificate of Completion of Installation of the Roof, attesting that Magnolia had completed the job. Precisely when water began leaking into the attic of Ms. Stewart's house is unclear. Nonetheless, Ms. Stewart expressed dissatisfaction with the roof from the outset. In response, in October and November 2011, SHIP sent another subcontractor, Crawford, to inspect the roof. Crawford found only cosmetic issues, and SHIP sent Magnolia to correct those issues. On August 2012, Hurricane Isaac struck the New Orleans area.

In early January 2013, Ms. Stewart noticed that water was leaking through the light fixture of a chandelier located in the entrance foyer of her house. She also noticed that one or more shingles were missing on her roof. Believing the leak in her roof was covered under warranty, she contacted SHIP and requested that it inspect and repair the roof. SHIP scheduled an inspection for the morning of January 10, 2013. Because Ms. Stewart had to work that day, she requested that her personal friend, Mr. Jones, meet the SHIP inspectors at her house. As a personal favor, Mr. Jones agreed to do so. In preparation for the inspection, Ms. Stewart showed Mr. Jones where the attic access was located on the second floor of her house.

On the morning of January 10, 2013, Mr. Jones met Ms. Stewart at her house; and Ms. Stewart left to work. At that time, water was still dripping from the chandelier; and water damage was visible on the ceiling area surrounding the chandelier. According to Mr. Jones' deposition testimony, two Hispanic males, neither of whom he could identify by name, arrived at about 9:00 a.m. The men identified themselves as SHIP's representatives. The men informed Mr. Jones that they did not have the shingles to repair the roof and that they would have to come back. Nonetheless, the men informed him that they would put a tarp on the roof. One of the men went to get the tarp; the other man (later identified as Moises Silva) accompanied Mr. Jones to the attic.

The attic access was a pull down stair type located on the second floor of Ms. Stewart's house. The attic itself was unfinished; it did not have floorboards. The spacing between the attic joists was twenty-four inches, and the attic floor was sprayed with insulation. Mr. Jones indicated that all the joists he walked on appeared to be the same distance apart. The precise height of the attic is unknown; however, Mr. Jones indicated that he was able to stand up the entire time when he was walking in the attic. The attic did not have any lighting.

Mr. Jones entered the attic first. Although Mr. Jones understood that Mr. Silva was going to follow him into the attic, Mr. Silva failed to do so. Instead, Mr. Silva stayed at the entrance access to the attic the entire time. Mr. Jones explained that he had to walk on the attic joists to get from the back of the house, where the attic access was located, to the front of the house, where the leak was located. He further explained that he slipped when he pivoted to point out to Mr. Silva where the leak was located. According to Mr. Jones, he had both his feet on one joist, one hand under the decking of the roof, and the other hand holding his cell phone when he slipped. Mr. Jones testified that he was "pretty sure" that he did not misstep and actually step on the sheetrock. Rather, he testified that he slipped and fell off the joist through the sheetrock and onto the foyer floor sixteen feet below.

As noted at the outset, Mr. Jones filed suit against multiple defendants, including the Contractor Defendants.2 Mr. Jones alleged that the accident and his resulting injuries were caused by, among other things, "[t]he premature failure of the roof caus[ing] the attic joists to be wet, slippery and unreasonably dangerous."3 After filing an answer to the petition denying liability and conducting discovery, each of the three Contractor Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of their direct liability to Mr. Jones. The trial court granted each of their motions and denied Mr. Jones' motion for new trial. This appeal followed. Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we first address two issues regarding the decretal language in the trial court's judgment granting the Contractor Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

DECRETAL LANGUAGE

"Decretal language" is defined as "the portion of a court's judgment or order that officially states (`decrees') what the court is ordering" and generally starts with "the formula `It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that ....'" Hon. Jon O. Newman, Decretal Language: Last Words of an Appellate Opinion, 70 Brook. L. Rev. 727 (2005). Here, the decretal language that requires special consideration states as follows:

The first issue presented by the decretal language arises from the limitation on the scope of the summary judgment on liability to the issue of the application of the open and obvious doctrine. A review of the record reflects that the trial court, at the request of one of the Contractor Defendants (Magnolia), included the limitation in the judgment itself, as opposed to only in the reasons for judgment. The intent, as evidenced by Magnolia's motion seeking such a limitation, was to preclude any other issue supporting the granting of the motions for summary judgment on liability from being considered on appeal, especially the issue of ease of association. As Magnolia pointed out in its motion, "the trial court did not render a judgment on the issue of ease of association between the workmanship of Crawford and/or Magnolia and the plaintiff's alleged injuries." The rationale was that the trial court, in ruling in favor of each of the Contractor Defendants, only reached the issue of the application of the open and obvious doctrine. None of the parties voiced an objection on the record to the limitation. Given the limitation appears in the judgment itself, we find it appropriate to limit our review on appeal to the issue of the application of the open and obvious doctrine. See La. C.C.P. art. 2164 (providing that "[t]he appellate court shall render any judgment which is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal.").

The second issue presented by the decretal language is raised in Magnolia's answer to the appeal, which we address next.

ANSWER TO THE APPEAL

Magnolia's answer to the appeal is based on the decretal language ordering "each party to bear his/her/its own costs of court." Magnolia seeks a modification of the judgment to cast Mr. Jones with all costs of court, including the costs for defending this appeal. Because we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings, we decline to modify the trial court's judgment casting costs on each party. We likewise refuse Magnolia's request for an award of costs for defending this appeal.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

The well-settled standard of review of a trial court's ruling granting a motion for summary judgment is as follows:

Ducote v. Boleware, 15-0764, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16), ___ So.3d ____-____, 2016 WL 659022, pp. *3-4, writ denied, 16-0636 (La. 5/20/16), 191 So.3d 1071.5

The jurisprudence has recognized that "[d]espite the legislative mandate that summary judgments are favored, any doubt as to a dispute regarding a material issue of fact must be resolved against granting the motion and in favor of a trial on the merits." Bridgewater v. New Orleans Reg'l Transit Auth., 15-0922, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/9/16), 190 So.3d 408, 412, writ denied, 16-0632 (La. 5/20/16), 191 So.3d 1071 (citing Willis v. Medders, 00-2507, p. 2 (La. 12/8/00), 775 So.2d 1049, 1050; FMC Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Prytania-St. Mary Condominiums Ass'n, Inc., 12-1634, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/15/13), 117 So.3d 217, 222-23; Windham v. Murray, 06-1275, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/30/07), 960 So.2d 328, 331). The determination of whether a fact is material turns on the applicable substantive law. Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512, p. 27 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730, 751. Mr. Jones' claims against the Contractor Defendants are solely negligence claims. See La. C.C. art. 2315 (providing that "[e]very act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.").

DISCUSSION

In addressing negligence claims, Louisiana courts employ a duty-risk analysis under which a plaintiff must prove the following five elements: 1) the defendant's duty of care to the plaintiff; 2) the defendant's breach of that duty; 3) cause-in-fact; 4) legal causation (scope); and 5) damages to the plaintiff caused by that breach. Davis v. Witt, 02-3102, 02-3110, p. 11 (La. 7/02/03), 851 So.2d 1119, 1127 (citing Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032 (La.1991), on reh'g, 605 So.2d 1050, 1051 (La.1991)). If a plaintiff fails to prove any one of the five elements, a defendant will not be held liable. Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 05-1095, p. 7 (La. 3/10/06), 923 So.2d 627, 633; Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 95-1466, 95-1487, p. 9 (La. 5/10/96), 673 So.2d 585, 590.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the threshold issue in all negligence actions is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty. Ponceti v. First Lake Properties, Inc., 11-2711, p. 2 (La. 7/2/12), 93 So.3d 1251, 1252 (citing Meany v. Meany, 94-0251, p. 6 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 229, 233). Whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty is a legal question for the court to decide. Ponceti, supra (collecting cases). The legal question is whether the plaintiff has any law — statutory or jurisprudential — to support his claim that the defendant owed him a duty. Faulkner v. The McCarty Corp., 02-1337, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/11/03), 853 So.2d 24, 28. Absent a duty to the plaintiff, there can be no actionable negligence and, hence, no liability. Bridgewater, 15-0922 at p. 10, 190 So.3d at 415.

As noted, the trial court granted the Contractor Defendants' motions for summary judgment based solely on its finding that the open and obvious doctrine applied and that the Contractor Defendants therefore owed no duty to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones contends that the trial court erred in applying the open and obvious doctrine, legally and factually. Legally, he contends that the open and obvious doctrine is unavailable to the Contractor Defendants because they were not the premises owner. Stated otherwise, he contends that the open and obvious doctrine only applies to premises liability claims, not to ordinary negligence claims such as presented here. He further contends that "[t]he Contractor Defendants owe a duty to all third-parties, including [him], to properly install or inspect the roof to ensure that water did not enter the Stewart home." Factually, he contends that the complained-of condition was not open and obvious. In support, he points out that "[w]hile the darkness of the attic may have been obvious, because of the darkness, the wetness of the joists was not obvious."

The Contractor Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the trial court correctly classified the complained-of condition as open and obvious. They also point out that Mr. Jones fails to cite any legal support for his argument that the open and obvious doctrine applies only to premises liability claims. They argue that the jurisprudence has not so limited the open and obvious doctrine.

We find it unnecessary to resolve the legal issue of whether the open and obvious doctrine is limited to premises liability claims.6 Assuming the open and obvious doctrine applies to the instant negligence claims based on the complained-of condition of the attic,7 we find the Contractor Defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They failed to demonstrate that the complained-of condition — the unfinished, unlit, wet attic — was open, obvious, and not unreasonably dangerous. Given this finding, we pretermit all Mr. Jones' other arguments.8

Our finding that the Contractor Defendants failed to establish a prima facie case is based on an analysis of the law regarding the open and obvious doctrine and the evidence presented to the trial court on the motions for summary judgment. We separately address each of those two considerations.

The law on the open and obvious doctrine

This court set forth the "legal contours of the open and obvious to all defense" in Scarberry, 13-0214 at pp. 7-11, 136 So.3d at 203-05. There, we noted that the Supreme Court in Broussard v. State of Louisiana, Office of State Bldgs., 12-1238 (La. 4/5/13), 113 So.3d 175,9 indicated that "the issue of whether a condition constitutes an open and obvious hazard is properly raised in connection with the risk-utility analysis employed in deciding whether an owner of a thing is responsible for injuries caused by a hazardous condition or defective component." Scarberry, 13-0214 at p. 8, 136 So.3d at 203.10 Continuing, we noted:

Scarberry, 13-0214 at pp. 10-11, 136 So.3d at 204.

The Broussard case, however, left the jurisprudence with the following five "paradoxical principles":

Edmison v. Caesars Entm't Co., Inc., 177 F.Supp.3d 972, 977-78 (E.D.La.2016), 2016 WL 1383645, p. *4.

Clarifying Broussard, the Supreme Court, in a trio of cases, held that, absent any material factual issue, the summary judgment procedure can be used to determine whether a defect is open and obvious and thus does not present an unreasonable risk of harm. Bufkin v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC, 14-0288 (La. 10/15/14), 171 So.3d 851; Rodriguez v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 14-1725 (La. 11/14/14), 152 So.3d 871; Allen v. Lockwood, 14-1724 (La. 2/13/15), 156 So.3d 650, 651.11

In the Bufkin case, the complained-of condition was a large construction dumpster owned by the defendant-construction company. The plaintiff-pedestrian was injured when he was struck by a bicyclist while attempting to cross a street in the New Orleans French Quarter (Conti Street), which was located next to the dumpster. The plaintiff contended that the defendant created an unreasonable risk of harm to pedestrians by setting up a blind spot that prevented pedestrians from seeing oncoming traffic when crossing Conti Street. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to the plaintiff. The trial court denied the motion. This court denied writs. The Supreme Court granted writs, reversed the trial court, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The Supreme Court held that the dumpster was open, obvious, and did not create an unreasonable risk of harm, and that the defendant thus owed no duty to the plaintiff. In so holding, the Supreme Court reasoned as follows:

Bufkin, 14-0288 at p. 10, 171 So.3d at 858.

In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court stated in a footnote that its earlier opinion in Broussard "should not be construed as precluding summary judgment when no legal duty is owed because the condition encountered is obvious and apparent to all and not unreasonably dangerous." Bufkin, 14-0288 at p. 12, n. 3, 171 So.3d at 859.

In the Rodriguez case, the complained-of condition was a shopping cart in the defendant-store's parking lot. The plaintiff-customer fell in the parking lot as a result of her foot coming into contact with the shopping cart. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court denied writs. The Supreme Court granted writs, reversed the trial court, and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. In so doing, the Supreme Court reasoned as follows:

Rodriguez, 14-1725 at pp. 1-2, 152 So.3d at 872.

In the Allen case, the complained-of condition was an unpaved, grassy parking area owned by the church defendants. An elderly church member struck the plaintiff with her vehicle when the church member was backing out of the parking area. The trial court denied the church defendants' motion for summary judgment. Denying the church defendants' writ, the appellate court cited Broussard for the proposition that the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable harm should be decided by the fact-finder. The Supreme Court granted writs, reversed the trial court, and granted the church defendants' motion for summary judgment. In so doing, the Supreme Court reasoned as follows:

Allen, 156 So.3d at 652-53.

In this case, the complained-of condition was the unfinished, unlit, wet attic. Citing the Supreme Court's trio of cases discussed above, the trial court found that the complained-of condition was open and obvious to anyone entering it and granted the Contractor Defendants' motions for summary judgment. In its oral reasons for judgment, the trial court stated as follows:

In sum, the Supreme Court's trio of cases discussed above, as the trial court correctly noted, stands for the proposition that summary judgment may be granted based on the open and obvious doctrine in an appropriate case. Contrary to the trial court's conclusion and the Contractor Defendants' contentions, we find, given the evidence presented on the motions for summary judgment (discussed below), this is not an appropriate case.

The evidence presented on the motions for summary judgment

The evidence presented on the Contractor Defendants' motions for summary judgment reflects that, at the time of the accident, the following three conditions contemporaneously existed in Ms. Stewart's attic: (i) unfinished, (ii) unlit, and (iii) wet. We separately address the evidence as to each of these conditions.

Unfinished

Ms. Stewart described her attic as having unfinished flooring and blown insulation everywhere. Mr. Jones explained that he had to walk on the attic jois to get from the back of the house, where the attic access was located, to the front of the house, where the leak was located. Although there was insulation between the joists, Mr. Jones denied that any insulation was covering the joists on which he had to walk.

Unlit

Ms. Stewart testified that she did not tell Mr. Jones that there was no light in her attic because she thought the workers (the SHIP inspectors), not Mr. Jones, were going in the attic.12 Mr. Jones testified that when he entered the attic, he assumed there was a light up there because "[m]ost places have some type of light fixture." He testified that when he entered the attic, he looked for a light switch or some other sign of a light fixture; however, there was none. Rather than go back down to retrieve a flashlight, Mr. Jones and Mr. Silva decided to use the illuminations from their cell phones. Mr. Jones used the LED lighting of his phone; Mr. Silva used the flashlight application on his cell phone. According to Mr. Jones, he and Mr. Silva believed that their cell phones provided sufficient lighting. Mr. Jones indicated that there was additional natural lighting through the holes in the roof; he testified that he saw nails penetrating the decking and light shining through. Nonetheless, Mr. Jones described the attic at the time of the accident as dark. Ms. Stewart likewise testified that "it's hard to see in there."

Wet

Mr. Jones acknowledged that he was aware when he entered the attic that there was an active leak causing water to penetrate the foyer. Indeed, he testified that he went over to Ms. Stewart's house two days before the accident and helped her place pots and pans under the chandelier in her foyer to catch the dripping water. He also acknowledged that he knew "[t]he only thing above where the water was coming in [was] the attic." Given the presence of an active water leak, Mr. Jones conceded that he knew the attic would be wet before he went up there and that he "especially knew it would be wet in the area where the chandelier was because water had been running down the chandelier."

Inside the attic, Mr. Jones acknowledged that he saw water coming through the underside of the roof decking above him; he testified that he "saw water coming from the light that was coming through the wood where the nails were in the ceiling — I mean in the roof." As to whether there was water on the joist on which he was walking, Mr. Jones' testimony was as follows:

Mr. Jones further testified as follows:

Citing the evidence regarding the complained-of condition, the trial court, in granting the Contractor Defendants' motions for summary judgment, orally reasoned as follows:

As noted above, the Contractor Defendants, as the movers, had the initial burden of showing that no genuine issues of material fact exist. The Contractor Defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the complained-of condition that allegedly caused Mr. Jones' fall and resulting injuries was open, obvious, and not unreasonably dangerous. For this reason, we need not address whether Mr. Jones properly rebutted the Contractor Defendants' motion. See Marshall v. Jazz Casino Co., 15-1192, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/29/16), 197 So.3d 316, 320 (citing Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5747, 03-1533, pp. 6-9 (La. 2/20/04), 866 So.2d 228, 233-34 (motion for summary judgment must be "properly supported" before burden shifts to opponent)).

We acknowledge, as the Contractor Defendants point out, that an unfinished, unlit attic has been held to present an open and obvious condition.14 Nonetheless, despite the presence of an open and obvious condition, the jurisprudence has recognized that "case-specific factual issues" may preclude summary judgment. Jimenez v. Omni Royal Orleans Hotel, 10-1647, pp. 11-12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/18/11), 66 So.3d 528, 534-35. In Jimenez, we explained this category of cases as follows:

Jimenez, 10-1647 at pp. 11-12, 66 So.3d at 534-35. This case falls into the category of cases involving "case-specific factual issues" precluding summary judgment.

Magnolia's argument regarding the open and obvious issue demonstrates why this case falls into that category.15 Magnolia argues that Mr. Jones is attempting to disregard his awareness of the leak by mythologizing a "reasonable person" who was ignorant of the leak. Magnolia points out that this case is unique in that Ms. Stewart's attic was not open to the general public. Magnolia explains that the only reason anyone would enter Ms. Stewart's attic around the time of Mr. Jones' accident would have been to inspect or repair the leak. Magnolia thus contends that "[a] reasonable person — who was entering the attic to show a leak to a repair person — would understand that a roof leak would logically result in water entering the attic through the leak; indeed it was apparent that water reached the foyer below and could cause the inside of the attic to be wet and slippery. No one was entering the attic in ignorance of the leak."

Magnolia also points out that the trial court's written reasons for judgment, on the denial of the motion for new trial, establish that the trial court understood this point; particularly, Magnolia cites the following statement by the trial court: "this Court's ruling is not based on Plaintiff's subjective knowledge, but rather on objective factors that a reasonable prudent person entering the attic would observe and know."16 Continuing, Magnolia posits that "[a] reasonable person must be given the context and the knowledge that any person entering Tammy Stewart's attic would possess" and that Mr. Jones' "attempt to frame the `reasonable person' differently does not fit the case." As Magnolia's argument demonstrates, the need to fit the reasonable person into the facts of this case places this case squarely into the category of cases involving "case-specific factual issues" precluding summary judgment.

Nor is this a case involving a "large inanimate object visible to all," like the dumpster in Bufkin, supra. Rather, the complained-of condition here is the synergistic relationship of three separate conditions existing in Ms. Stewart's attic at the time of the accident — unfinished, unlit, and wet. The interaction of these three conditions gives rise to fact-specific issues. As Mr. Jones points out, "[w]hile the darkness of the attic may have been obvious, because of the darkness, the wetness of the joints was not obvious." As one court has noted, "[h]idden and concealed dangers are the antithesis of open and obvious dangers." Aaron v. Palatka Mall, L.L.C., 908 So.2d 574, 579 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005).

Moreover, the evidence that was introduced on the Contractor Defendants' motions for summary judgment further supports our finding that this case falls into the category of cases involving "case-specific factual issues" precluding summary judgment. Mr. Jones' deposition testimony, quoted above, reflects that the extent to which he, or anyone else, was able to see that the joist — the surface — on which he was walking was wet is unclear. Indeed, he testified that he "tried to stop before where it [the leak and presumably the water therefrom] actually was." Moreover, both Mr. Jones and Ms. Stewart testified that it was hard to see in Ms. Stewart's attic.

In sum, the Contractor Defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the complained-of condition was open and obvious; hence, the burden never shifted to Mr. Jones to rebut their motions. Although duty is a question of law, summary judgment on the issue of duty is proper "only where no duty exists as a matter of law and no factual or credibility disputes exist." Parish v. L.M. Daigle Oil Co., Inc., 98-1716, pp. 10-11 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/23/99), 742 So.2d 18, 25. Such is not the case here. Given the "case-specific factual issues" regarding the complained-of condition, summary judgment is precluded here. Jimenez, supra.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. This case is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED