The right ingredients for complex litigation in Louisiana.

In Ralser v. Harrah’s New Orleans, the claimant tripped over the extended arm of a forklift while walking toward the employee entrance for the defendant’s casino. A third-party construction contractor had parked the forklift adjacent to the employee entrance while doing work on the premises. Surveillance footage showed that no warning signs, barricades, or other safety devices had been placed around the forklift. Evidence also showed that another employee tripped over the same forklift on the same day.

Generally, an employee's injuries sustained while traveling to or from a place of employment are not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law. This is known as the “going-and-coming rule.” However, at trial, the workers’ compensation judge applied the Threshold Doctrine, an exception to this general rule, and found the accident occurred in the course and scope of the claimant’s employment. Under Louisiana law, the Threshold Doctrine applies when:

1. A distinctive or unusual travel risk exists; and
2. The risk is immediately  adjacent to the employer’s premises.

On appeal, the employer argued that the trial judge was manifestly erroneous in applying the Threshold Doctrine. However, in affirming the trial court’s determination, the appellate court emphasized several factual findings that supported application of the doctrine:

• The forklift created a  distinctive travel hazard.
• The hazard was  immediately adjacent to the employee entrance.
• Employees regularly traversed the route where the forklift was located.
• The risk arose from construction activities associated with Harrah’s premises.
• No warnings, barricades,  or protective measures were in place to protect employees from the hazard.

Under the facts of this case, the court found the Threshold Doctrine applied. Even though the employer did not own the forklift, evidence showed the forklift was within the defendant-employer’s control and presented a distinct travel risk immediately adjacent to the casino.  

While it may be limited to its facts, this decision is significant because it appears to extend application of the Threshold Doctrine and suggest employers may be held responsible for dangers created by conditions near workplace access points, even when those conditions arise from the activities of third parties. Because Ralser presented very unique circumstances, it remains to be seen whether the decision will impact the well-established Threshold Doctrine beyond its facts.

References:

 Ralser v. Harrah’s New Orleans, ___ So. 3d ___, 2026WL 1090787 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/22/26).

‍

In Couvillion Group, LLC v. Plaquemine Parish Government, the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed whether the general contractor could recover “pass-through claims” against the owner where those claims would be time-barred if brought directly by the subcontractors. “Pass-through claims” have been described as damage claims that subcontractors “pass through” to the contractor to prosecute an action against the project owner to recover those damages.

In Couvillion, the contractor sued the Parish for delay damages. The trial court awarded $2,782,724 in delay damages, $300,000 of which was for delays incurred by two of the subcontractors.

On appeal, the Parish argued that the contractor could not recover the pass-through claims because any claims for delay that the subcontractors had against the contractor were prescribed (time-barred). The subcontractors sent demand letters after substantial completion in 2013 but did not file suit against the contractor. Under Louisiana law, contract claims are subject to a 10-year prescriptive period. The Parish asserted that by the time trial occurred in 2024, the subcontractor claims had prescribed.

The Fourth Circuit recognized that subcontractors often pass their claims through the contractor to prosecute against the owner to recover those damages. The contractor included those claims in the lawsuit filed against the owner in 2015. When several parties share a cause of action, suit by one party interrupts prescription as to all parties. As such, the court held that prescription was interrupted, and the contractor could recover the pass-through claims against the owner.

This case highlights the importance of identifying and properly preserving pass-through claims early in litigation.

References:

Couvillion Grp., LLC v. Plaquemines Par. Gov't, 2025-0356 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/7/26), 430 So. 3d 1175, writ denied, 2026-00217 (La. 5/12/26), 430 So. 3d 1090.

‍