Category: Louisiana Supreme Court

Louisiana Supreme Court Clarifies “Reasonably Anticipated Use” in Product Liability Claim

11.10.2025

Plaintiff Brady Hardisty and a coworker attempted to use chains attached to a tractor to pull a Caterpillar bulldozer from the mud. A chain snapped and struck plaintiff in the head and face. Hardisty sued Caterpillar under allegations that its product was unreasonably dangerous. Caterpillar filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing Hardisty was not engaged in a “reasonably anticipated use” of its product. Both the trial court and the appellate court identified “material issues of fact” in denying Caterpillar’s motion. The Supreme Court reversed, and entered summary judgment for Caterpillar.^

Caterpillar cited its Operation Manual that warned against the use of chains and gave a safer alternative. Hardisty asserted that material issues of fact existed as to whether Caterpillar “knew or should have known” that users were not following product warnings. Hardisty offered opinions from its expert witness that: (1) Caterpillar knew of the danger because it warned against the use of chains and (2) experience showed that the use of chains was a common practice in the industry.

The Hardisty court reasoned that the expert’s own “experience” was insufficient to refute Caterpillar’s evidence that it received no report of prior similar accidents. However, the Court cited to earlier case law for the proposition that even actual knowledge would not defeat the motion, stating:

The jurisprudence has recognized that knowledge of the potential and actual intentional abuse of a product does not create a question of fact on the question of reasonably anticipated use when the manufacturer expressly warned against the danger of such misuse.

In a recent case handled by Keogh Cox, the federal Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants, citing Hardisty for the proposition that a manufacturer may reasonably expect that its users will follow “clear and direct” product warnings. See Friels v. Louisiana State Administrative Office of Rick Management, et al.

References:

^Hardisty v. Walker, 25-00239 (La. 6/3/25), 410 So,3d 774.

Louisiana State Administrative Office of Rick Management, et al., No. 24-30688, 8/15/25. Opinion not designated for publication. 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Court Finds University Not Liable for Criminal Act of its Student

10.07.2025

A Louisiana court recently granted a motion for summary judgment in a case involving third-party criminal activity on a university campus. The motion initially was denied, but the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded the motion for reconsideration in light of its ruling in Evans v. Abubaker, Inc. After considering Evans in the context of a claim brought against an institution of higher learning, the court found Grambling University had no duty to provide additional security measures and could not have done anything within its scope of duty to prevent the murder of one of its students. See Augman v. Grambling State University.

In Augman, the plaintiff’s son, a student at Grambling University, was fatally shot at a party on the Grambling campus by another Grambling University student.  The established facts confirmed the social gathering was on campus, that alcohol was consumed at the party, and that guns were present.  In applying Evans to a higher education context and granting Grambling University’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Third Judicial District Court reasoned:

There are allegations of breached policies by Grambling, i.e., allowing alcohol consumption on campus, allowing a pop-up party, and not searching for weapons in all the dorm rooms. Despite those allegations, there is no evidence presented in this summary judgment that shows that by following any of those policies to the T, Grambling would have prevented this incident.  Likewise, the evidence presented on summary judgment does not show that there are additional security measures that Grambling could have taken to prevent this tragedy.

There is no indication Grambling had any duty to provide any additional security measures in this case.  Likewise, there is no evidence presented that Grambling could have done anything within its duty or scope of duty, analyzed with regard to Evans, to prevent this tragedy.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion in Evans explained that preventing third party criminal activity by someone who intentionally engages in criminal conduct is not within the scope of duty of a business owner. The Evans court held, “Some risks that arise because of a defendant’s conduct are not within the scope of the duty owed to a particular plaintiff because they are unforeseeable.”  Augman applied Evans’ reasoning in a higher education/alleged negligence on campus context and dismissed the claims brought against Grambling University because preventing the shooting of one student by another student on its campus was not within Grambling’s scope of duty.

Just one month after the Augman ruling, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued the opinion of Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc. For more detailed analysis of this case, see a July 28, 2025, Keogh Cox blog by John P. Wolff III. In Campbell, the Supreme Court did not modify the duty/risk analysis but clarified the separate analyses of “duty” and “scope of duty”, concluding that the scope of the duty owed by the defendant hotel did not encompass the risk of the harm and injury suffered by the plaintiff.  Again, the Campbell Court focused on “foreseeability” of the criminal activity and considered evidence that the plaintiff’s own actions placed him in the path of peril.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s reasoning in Campbell echoes its decision in Evans, suggesting that the issue of “scope of duty” for third-party criminal activity on university campuses analyzed in Augman would apply in cases involving claims against other institutions of higher learning as well.   

References:

Evans v. Abubaker, Inc., 2023-00955 (La. 5/10/24), 384 So.3d 853. 

Augman v. Grambling State University, Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Lincoln, Supplemental Summary Judgment Ruling with Reasons for Ruling, Feb. 07, 2025.

Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc., 2024-00840 (La. 3/21/25), 403 So.3d 573. 

Third-Party Criminal activity: Is Summary Judgment Available in a Premises Liability case?

07.28.2025

The liability of a premises owner for third-party criminal acts has been the subject of many decisions issued by the Louisiana Supreme Court. But recently, the Court clarified how to analyze this issue in the context of summary judgment. In Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc. (Windsor Court), the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and held that Windsor Court was not liable for a robbery that occurred in its courtyard.

The factual background is simple: Campbell was a frequent guest at the Windsor Court. He decided to approach a vehicle near the entrance to the courtyard when he pulled a “substantial amount of cash” to show the female occupants in the vehicle. He placed the money back in his pocket and talked with them for one minute and forty-six seconds. When he pulled the cash from his pocket a second time, one of the occupants grabbed the cash and the vehicle sped away dragging him with it. Campbell then sued the Windsor Court alleging negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, failure to ensure the safety of its guests, etc.

The importance of this decision is found in how the Court analyzed the case to reach its conclusion that summary judgment was proper: The Court noted that it was not modifying prior duty/risk analysis but was clarifying how the analysis is to be conducted—The issues of “duty” and “scope of duty” are separate inquiries that require separate analysis.

In Campbell, the Court acknowledged that “duty” is a question of law for the court. It then concluded that “(w)hether a particular risk falls within the scope of that duty, by contrast, ‘is fact sensitive and ultimately turns on a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of that duty.’” However, the court continued, “‘(t)he determination of legal cause/scope of the duty involves a purely legal question.’” The Court conducted an historical analysis noting that prior decisions had “merged the concept of duty and scope of duty into a single consideration.”

On the threshold question of duty, the Court acknowledged that in the context of third-party criminal activity, Windsor Court, as an innkeeper, owed a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect its patrons from criminal acts of third parties. Having found this duty, the Court then concluded that “Campbell cannot meet the ‘scope of the duty’ element of his claim.” In other words, “the scope of the duty owed by the Windsor Court did not encompass the risk of the particular harm and Injury Mr. Campbell suffered.”

Here the court asked whether this particular risk and injury were “foreseeable.” The Court examined multiple factors to find that the robbery was not foreseeable, but the Court further noted “perhaps even more important to our decision is the manner in which the robbery occurred.” Campbell was not unexpectedly accosted, but his own actions placed him in peril. As such, the Court found no “ease of association” between Windsor Court’s duty to take reasonable precautions to protect its guests and the risk that the guest would voluntarily approach an unknown vehicle and flash a sizable pile of cash.

Justice Crain concurred in the opinion and noted that “scope of duty can be resolved on summary judgment if reasonable persons could not disagree that the manner of the injury is either within or beyond the scope of the duty.” Justice Crain also noted that the manner of injury must be analyzed in the context of “foreseeability” from the perspective of the premises owner and have an “ease of association” between the duty and the manner of injury—this analysis is necessary to “avoid making a defendant the insurer of all persons against all harms.” Thus, he agreed with the majority that Campbell was unable to establish the scope of duty element.

Reference:

Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc., 2024-00840 (La. 3/21/25), 403 So. 3d 573.

Louisiana Supreme Court Revisits How General Damage Awards Are Reviewed on Appeal

02.19.2025

In Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, the Louisiana Supreme Court re-examined how Louisiana courts should review general damage awards. The Court noted its decision also was intended to clarify its prior ruling in in Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., which addressed the same issue. To review our prior analysis of the Court’s holding in Pete, click here.

Traditionally, Louisiana has required a two-step analysis for appellate review of a lower court’s damage awards. First, the appellate court must determine whether the trier of fact “abused its discretion” in assessing damages. Courts generally found a damage award abused discretion if it “shocked the conscience,” a standard critics argued was too subjective. Second, and only if the award “shocked the conscience,” courts could consider prior awards to establish the highest or lowest reasonable award.

In Pete, the Court held that courts of appeal should compare verdicts to general damage awards in similar cases during the first step of analysis to determine whether a trial court abused its discretion. This approach suggested general damage awards should not be solely based on the subjective findings of the jury but should be grounded in objective comparisons to other cases. It was thought this also served the purpose of maintaining consistency and reasonableness of damage awards. The Pete decision was seen by many as an attempt to address Louisiana’s trend of rising verdicts, which critics argued were contributing to higher insurance premiums in the state.

However, in Barber Bros., the Supreme Court revisited these issues, when it examined a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $10.75 million in general damages, $2.5 million to his wife for loss of consortium, and $1.5 million to each of their two children. The jury found the plaintiff sustained extensive physical injuries and a traumatic brain injury, which significantly impacted his personality, lifestyle, and self-image.

Citing Pete, the Louisiana Supreme Court initially reduced the awards to $5 million for the plaintiff, $400,000 for his wife, and $100,000 for each child. However, upon rehearing, the Court reinstated the original general damages award. Citing Pete again, the court clarified how damage awards should be reviewed on appeal as follows: (1) courts should determine whether abuse of discretion occurred by examining the particular facts and circumstances of the case, to include a “consideration of prior awards in similar cases,” and (2) if abuse of discretion is found, “the court is to then also consider those prior awards to determine ‘the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion.’”

The Court clarified that the consideration of prior awards should be balanced with an examination of the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Considering the facts of Barber Bros., the Court held it did not adequately account for the effects of the plaintiff’s injuries upon initial hearing. While the jury award was “on the high end of the range of reasonable awards,” the court found it was not disproportionate to prior awards and “bore a reasonable relationship” to the evidence presented at trial.  Thus, the award did not “shock the conscience” and should not have been adjusted following the initial hearing.

The Barber Bros. decision may be limited to the facts presented in that case. However, the ruling appears to suggest that prior verdicts are only a factor to be weighed against a case’s facts to assess whether a trial court abused its discretion with a general damage award that “shocks the conscience.” While the court did not overturn Pete, the Barber Bros. case appears to re-open the door for damage awards to be based upon more subjective assessments of the jury and not the more objective standards the Pete decision initially appeared to create. It remains to be seen how much weight prior decisions will carry when courts address these issues moving forward.

References:

Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, 23-788 (La. 12/19/24), 397 So. 3d 404.

Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., 23-170 (La. 10/20/23), 379 So. 3d 636, reh’g denied, 23-170 (La. 12/7/23), 374 So. 3d 135.

Louisiana Supreme Court Rules on Bond an Insurer Must Post for Suspensive Appeal

12.03.2024

A Louisiana litigant has a right to appeal a judgment rendered against it at trial and has two options to appeal the judgment. The litigant can take a suspensive appeal, which suspends the execution of the judgment pending the outcome of the appeal, or it can take a devolutive appeal, which does not. La. C.C.P. art. 2124 provides that when the judgment if for a sum of money, a party seeking a suspensive appeal must post security, or a bond, “equal to the amount of the judgment,” including interest.

What happens when a monetary judgment is cast against an insurer (and its insureds) and the amount of the judgment exceeds the limits of the insurer’s policy? Can the insurer be required to post bond in excess of its policy limits to suspensively appeal the judgment? The Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed this issue and ruled an insurer is required to post a security bond covering only its policy limits.

In Martinez v. Am. Transp. Grp. Risk Retention Grp., Inc., a jury cast judgment against a transportation group, its driver, and its insurer for damages the plaintiff sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The trial court rendered a judgment in the amount of $2,802,054.66, which was in excess of the $1,000,000 limits of the insurer’s policy. The insurer moved for a suspensive appeal and requested a reduced bond because its insured was no longer in existence and could not post a bond. Nevertheless, the trial court set the appeal bond at $2,802,054.66, plus interest. The insurer posted a bond in the amount of its policy limits plus interest and costs and sought appellate review of the trial court’s appeal bond order.

The Supreme Court observed that the contracts clauses of the federal and state constitutions prohibit the enactment of any law “impairing the obligation of contracts.” Therefore, the Court found that to require an insurer to post a bond for suspensive appeal in excess of its policy limits would render meaningless, and therefore impair, the terms of the insurance contract setting the policy’s limits. Thus, the Martinez court should have set security to allow the insurer to suspensively appeal the portion of the judgment up to its policy limit.

However, the Court refused to reduce the suspensive appeal bond for all the defendants cast in judgment. Instead, the Court ruled the insurer could suspensively appeal the judgment up to the amount of its policy limits, stay execution of that portion of the judgment, and devolutively appeal the remainder of the case for its insureds.

References:

Martinez v. Am. Transp. Grp. Risk Retention Grp., Inc., 2023-01716 (La. 10/25/24) 2024 WL 4579047.

Claims for Indemnity and Defense Brought Prior to a Liability Determination Are No Longer Premature

11.05.2024

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that a claim for defense and indemnity may be asserted before a judicial finding of liability. The Court’s decision overruled prior decisions that held claims for defense and indemnity were premature until it was determined that damages were actually owed and the party claiming indemnity sustained a loss.

In Daniel Bennett v. Demco Energy Services, the plaintiff alleged he was injured when he drove over a downed power line that belonged to Cox Communications. Evidence showed Cox Communications contracted with Cable Man to provide services, maintenance, and repair for its telecommunication companies. The contract covered maintenance and repair of the subject phone line.

The contract included an indemnification provision that required Cable Man to indemnify and defend Cox Communications from any and all claims relating to Cable Man’s work, Pursuant to the contract, Cox Communications sent Cable Man a request to tender defense and indemnification under the contract. Cable Man refused the tender and Cox Communications filed a cross-claim against Cable Man asserting that it was owed defense and indemnification. In response, Cable Man filed an Exception of Prematurity and maintained that the claim for indemnity had not accrued because there had not been a judgment or a finding a Cable Man’s fault or liability.

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Exception of Prematurity and stated that “It is well-established that claims for indemnity, as well as claims for defense arising under an indemnity agreement, are premature prior to a determination that damages are actually owed and the indemnitee sustains a loss.” The court reasoned that the lawsuit was still pending against both parties and no liability determination had been made.  Therefore, under the “well-established” law, Cable Man owed no obligation to Cox Communications for indemnity and costs at the time Cox asserted its cross-claim.

However, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit’s decision and Cable Man’s claims of prematurity were denied. Acknowledging such claims for indemnification previously were considered premature, the Court held the law moving forward should allow for a claim for indemnity, whether in a third-party demand or a cross-claim, that is raised during the course of litigation and before a finding of liability. Further, the Court recognized potential inconsistencies with prior judicial determinations and stated, “in light of our ruling today, to the extent any prior jurisprudence can be interpreted otherwise, we now clarify that such a claim for indemnity is not prohibited before a liability adjudication.”

This ruling makes clear that “asserting a claim for indemnity, arising out of the same facts and circumstances, is not premature before a judicial finding of liability.” The right to collect on an indemnity agreement continues to be determined upon a finding of liability or loss, but a claim for indemnity can now be asserted in the same proceeding.

References:

Daniel Bennett v. Demco Energy Services, et al, 2023-CC-01358 (La. 5/10/24); 386 So.3d 270.

Public Health Emergencies, Medical Review Panels, and Gross Negligence – Where Does Louisiana Currently Stand?

08.05.2024

Under the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act (“LHEPA”), a plaintiff must establish a medical provider’s gross negligence in a medical malpractice case when the treatment at issue occurred during a declared state of public health emergency.^ However, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently ruled that a medical review panel shall not consider gross negligence when the medical treatment occurred during a declared state of public health emergency.

In Sebble v. St. Luke’s, the plaintiff instituted a medical review panel for a medical malpractice claim related to medical treatment provided from June 17, 2020 to June 24, 2020. This treatment was received during a declared state of public health emergency. Sebble asked the court for a declaratory judgment to state that the gross negligence standard, usually applied during a state of public health emergency, should not be considered or applied in medical review panel proceedings conducted pursuant to the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (“LMMA”).

In response, the health care provider also sought a declaratory judgment that LHEPA’s standard of gross negligence applied and that the medical review panel must consider and analyze the claim under the gross negligence standard. The trial court ruled in favor of Sebble declaring that the gross negligence standard shall not be considered or applied in the medical review panel proceeding.  The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Louisiana Supreme Court examined provisions of the LMMA and the LHEPA and affirmed the trial court and court of appeal. The court agreed there is a distinction between a medical standard of care (considered by the medical review panel) and a legal standard of care (dictated by the LHEPA). The panel of medical experts is only qualified to render an opinion based on the medical standard of care. The panel’s opinion is then considered by the trier of fact in making a judicial determination.

Medical review panels include an attorney chairperson. However, the Supreme Court stated that the attorney chairperson is not authorized to instruct the panel on gross negligence. The Supreme Court also rejected a proposed two-step process where the panel would first determine whether the medical provider breached the standard of care; and only if the panel found a breach would it consider whether there was gross negligence. The Court rejected this proposal because the legislature did not provide for this process in the statute.

Although the Court agreed that the LHEPA is an immunity statute, it made clear that immunity is an affirmative defense that can only be plead in civil litigation.  The statute provides for two defenses at the panel stage: right of action and prescription.  Therefore, immunity provided under the LHEPA may not be invoked until a civil action is instituted district court.

However, Sebble was 4-3 decision, with a dissent by Justices Weimer, Cain, and McCallum, which may suggest this issue could resurface in the future. For now, under Sebble, gross negligence is not to be considered by the medical review panel.

References:

Sebble v. St. Luke’s, 2023-C-00483 (La. 10/20/23), 379 So.3d 615.

^ La. R.S. 29:766(A).

Louisiana Supreme Court Vacates Prior Decision and Finds Prescriptive Periods for Child Abuse Claims Can Be Revived

06.17.2024

In 2021, the Louisiana Legislature amended La. R.S. 9:2800.9 to provide that a legal action against a person for sexual abuse of a minor, if barred by liberative prescription prior to the effective date of the amendment, is revived for a three-year period after the effective date of the amendment.  In 2022, La. R.S. 9:2800.9 was amended again to specifically state the Legislature’s intent to revive any cause of action related to sexual abuse of a minor that previously prescribed under any Louisiana prescriptive period.

On March 22, 2024, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its decision in Douglas Bienvenu, et al. v. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and found the statute was unconstitutional because it conflicted with due process protections set forth in the Louisiana Constitution. Specifically, the Court found that a defendant has a vested property right in accrued prescription and that revival of a prescribed cause of action violated due process.

However, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ request for rehearing, and on June 12, 2024, the Court vacated its prior ruling and found that the amendments to La. R.S. 9:2800.9 were constitutional.

On rehearing, the court agreed that a defendant has a vested property right in accrued prescription but found another step in constitutional analysis was required— examination of whether the legislature’s revival of prescribed causes of action for sexual abuse of minors “comports with substantive due process.” The Court noted, “The essence of substantive due process is protection from arbitrary and capricious action.”

In Bienvenu, the defendants’ right to plead prescription was an economic interest that did not implicate fundamental rights. The statute at issue was social welfare legislation, enacted to address societal costs of child sexual abuse. Therefore, the Court found the applicable due process test was whether the legislation was reasonable in relation to the goal to be attained and was adopted in the interest of the community as a whole. The statute needed only to have a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest to survive due process scrutiny.

The Court found the amendments to La. R.S. 9:2800.9 passed this test because (1) the provision assists in identifying hidden child predators so children will not be abused in the future; (2) shifts the costs of the abuse from the victims and society to those who actually caused it; and (3) educates the public about the prevalence and harm from child sexual abuse to prevent future abuse. These interests were found legitimate and compelling. Thus, the statute was constitutional and could be applied retroactively “to revive, for the period stated, all causes of action related to sexual abuse of a minor that previously prescribed under any Louisiana prescriptive period.”

References:

Bienvenu v. Defendant 1, 2023-01194 (La. 3/22/24), 382 So. 3d 38, reh’g granted, 2023-01194 (La. 5/10/24), and opinion vacated on reh’g, 2023-01194 (La. 6/12/24).

Bienvenu v. Defendant 1, 2023-01194 (La. 6/12/24).

Louisiana Supreme Court Sets New Standard for Review of General Damage Awards 

03.25.2024

In recent years, the dollar amount of general damage awards to personal injury plaintiffs has been on the rise. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that may signal greater scrutiny for heightened general damage awards going forward. In Pete, v. Boland Marine and Manufacturing Co., the state’s highest court changed the standard of review in quantum disputes to require courts of appeal to consider general damage awards in similar cases when determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion in awarding a specific general damage award.

In Pete, a 74-year old mesothelioma patient was awarded $9.8 million in general damages after it was found he was exposed to asbestos. The jury awarded $2 million for past and future physical pain and suffering, $2.3 million for past and future mental pain and suffering, $3 million for past and future disability, and $2.5 million for past and future loss of enjoyment of life. The appellate court held the defendant failed to demonstrate the general damage award “shocks the conscience,” and found the jury did not abuse its discretion.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the decision. In so holding, it also changed the standard by which appellate courts evaluate whether a trial court abused its discretion in awarding general damages. The Louisiana Supreme Court  now instructs appellate courts to compare general damage awards to those awarded in similar cases in their review of the reasonableness of the trial court’s award. Applying the new standard, the Louisiana Supreme Court found the trial court abused its discretion and reduced the Pete plaintiff’s general damage award from $9.8 million to $5 million.

Previously, Louisiana courts employed a two-step analysis in evaluating general damage awards. First, the court of appeal determined whether the trial court’s award constituted a clear abuse of discretion. Second, and only  if the court first determined that there was an abuse of discretion, the appellate court would consider prior damage awards in similar cases to determine what an appropriate award should have been. This test had proven problematic because there were no clear objective standards for determining whether the trial court’s award was an abuse of discretion.

The appellate court’s decision in Pete v. Boland Marine serves as an excellent example of the problems this test presented. While the majority found that the $9.8 million awarded to Pete did not “shock the conscience,” a dissenting judge believed the award did shock the conscience, because it far exceeded general damage awards in similar cases. The “shocking the conscience” test has been long criticized because of its lack of objectivity, as the result ultimately depended on the thoughts and feeling of the presiding judges. Critics argued this led to unpredictability within the law.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision reforms the two part test in an attempt to resolve this issue. The new test mandates that appellate courts consider damage awards in similar cases in the initial inquiry, to objectively consider whether the trial court abused its discretion under the particular facts and circumstances of the case at hand. The second step of the test remains unchanged. If the court finds that the trial court abused its discretion, then the appellate court will look to recent cases to determine what is the highest or lowest award a reasonable trier of fact could have found and then reform the damage award accordingly.

This decision is a significant change in the law. It aims to increase predictability within the law and affords defendants objective standards by which to challenge damage awards. However, it remains to be seen how courts will implement this new test in practice. 

References:

Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., LLC, 23-170 (La. 10/20/23), reh’g denied, 23-170 (La. 12/7/23), 374 So. 3d 135.

Louisiana Supreme Court Addresses Mental Anguish Awards When No Other Injury Is Claimed

08.21.2023

As a general rule of Louisiana law, a plaintiff cannot recover general damages for mental disturbance or distress unless the defendant’s act also causes physical injury, illness, or some other physical consequence. However, in Spencer v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently reexamined the circumstances under which a limited exception to this general rule may apply.

The Spencer case involved an explosion and fire that occurred shortly after midnight at the Valero refinery in Meraux, Louisiana. The plaintiffs claimed Valero should be liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged they heard loud sounds, experienced anxiety, and had difficulty sleeping after the event. None of the plaintiffs received any medical treatment or experienced physical injury/symptoms. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs could not recover damages under these circumstances.

The court held that recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not precluded under Louisiana law. However, the court also cautioned that not every act that causes some harm also yields liability and compensatory damages. It held that Louisiana courts must also consider the goal set forth under Louisiana law to prevent “spurious” or false claims when examining these types of actions.

In review of the plaintiffs’ claims, the court cited Moresi v. State Through Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, to show that the plaintiffs were required to establish “the especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from the special circumstances, which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious.” The Spencer court held evidence of generalized fear or evidence of mere inconvenience is not enough to show that a plaintiff’s distress is “serious.” The court added that this rule must be “stringently applied,” because these types of cases, though fact intensive, are inherently speculative in nature.

In review of the facts presented in Spencer, the court found that Valero owed a duty to the plaintiffs and breached the “duty it owed, which was a cause-in-fact of plaintiffs’ generalized fear and anxiety.” However, the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence to show that their complaints, which included anxiety and difficulty sleeping, were sufficiently “serious” to support an award for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and their claims were dismissed. Although the result in Spencer may be limited to its facts, the Court’s decision appears to align with the general rule that a plaintiff usually cannot recover general damages for emotional distress in Louisiana absent an accompanying injury.

References:

Spencer v. Valero Refining Meraux, LLC, 2022-00469 (La. 1/27/23), 356 So. 3d 936.

Moresi v. State Through Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So.2d 1801 (La 1990).

Louisiana Supreme Court Rules on Admissibility of Expert Opinion on “Ultimate Issues”

08.14.2023

La Code Evid. Art. 704 addresses the use of expert testimony in Louisiana Courts and provides, “Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not to be excluded solely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” Though the text of this article is simple, Louisiana trial courts often face questions about when an expert’s opinion crosses a line and invades the jury’s fact-finding function. These questions often arise in the context of Daubert hearings under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1425.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Hulin v. Snow, where the Court was asked to review the extent to which an expert in a civil case could offer testimony that addressed the ultimate issues of law and fact in the case. The ultimate issue in the Hulin case, which involved parental care, was the alleged negligence of the defendants. The Court examined multiple tendered opinions of the plaintiffs’ expert, including expert testimony about the defendants’ negligence and credibility.

In a Per Curiam opinion, the Court ruled that it was improper for the expert to testify on the ultimate issues of whether the defendants were negligent or credible. It held that “(a)lthough experts may aid the trial court in the determinations of ultimate facts, the final conclusions drawn from those facts belong exclusively to the trier of fact.” The testimony of plaintiffs’ expert stated conclusions about these ultimate issues. Therefore, it was inadmissible.

However, the Court did allow the expert, a board-certified pediatrician, to opine on the parental care of the defendants. “Even though this testimony may embrace some of the ultimate issues to be decided by the trier of fact, it is permissible.” It appears the Court found that this testimony did not state conclusions about ultimate issues, as the Court held that the trier of fact could accept or reject the expert’s opinions on parental care as they relate to ultimate facts.

Reference:

Hulin v. Snow, 2023-00530 (La. 6/26/23), — So.3d —, 2023 WL 4199310.

Court Addresses the Reach of the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act’s Immunity Provision for Claims Against Health Care Providers

07.13.2023

The Louisiana Health Emergency Powers Act (LHEPA), La. R.S. 29:760 et seq, was enacted in 2003 to allow the government to use extraordinary powers in order to respond to potential or actual public health emergencies. Historically, claims against medical providers have been governed by a negligence standard, which requires a plaintiff to prove the provider failed to act with reasonable care. However, La. R.S. 29:771(2)(c), which was enacted as part of the LHEPA, provides what has been described as a limited or quasi-immunity for health care providers:

During a state of public health emergency, any health care providers shall not be civilly liable for causing the death of, or injury to, any person or damage to any property except in the event of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

This provision imposes a heightened standard of gross negligence or willful misconduct for claims against health care providers and their employees. “Gross negligence” has been defined as “the entire absence of care and the utter disregard of the dictates of prudence, amounting to complete neglect of the rights of others.”* Therefore, absent a showing of gross negligence or willful misconduct, the provision provides immunity from civil liability for all claims against all health care providers.

The reach and application of this heightened standard of gross negligence under the LHEPA has been the subject of recent rulings from Louisiana courts. In Lejeune v. Steck, which was decided before COVID-19 in connection with a public health emergency declared following Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the LHEPA’s heightened standard applied to all medical providers in the state while the state was in a public health emergency.^

In Lejeune, a doctor left a sponge in a patient during a surgery. The plaintiff argued that a general negligence standard should apply because the surgery occurred outside the Hurricane Katrina emergency area. However, the Court found that the plaintiff must prove gross negligence or willful misconduct because the LHEPA “does not provide for a limited set of health care providers, nor does it limit its application to only those medical personnel rendering emergency assistance voluntarily due to the emergency in the area.” Thus, the Court ruled the LHEPA was broad reaching and covered all health care providers in all areas of Louisiana during the public health emergency.

More recently, Governor Edwards invoked the LHEPA on March 11, 2020 in response to COVID-19. In line with the all-inclusive application seen in Lejeune, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the LHEPA applied to all claims against health care providers that arose during the public health emergency declared for COVID-19.

In Lathon v. Leslie Lakes Ret. Ctr., the Second Circuit applied the LHEPA to a premises liability claim.^^ The plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle at Leslie Lakes Retirement Center. The accident occurred during the declared public health emergency. The retirement center filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that because it qualified as a health care provider, the gross negligence standard set forth in the LHEPA should apply to the plaintiff’s claim.

The court agreed and found that the statute dictated that immunity applied in favor of any healthcare provider for any personal injury or property damage claim as long as it arose during a public health emergency. In so holding, the Court stated that the purpose of the LHEPA was to alleviate the liability burden on healthcare providers during public health emergencies. Therefore, the Court found its ruling aligned with the purpose of the act. The Lathon decision is significant because it applied the LHEPA’s statutory immunity to personal injury claims against healthcare providers outside of a medical malpractice setting.

At least one justice on the Louisiana Supreme Court voiced a desire to address the constitutionality of this statutory immunity provision. However, the Court ultimately declined to review the Second Circuit’s ruling. Therefore, under Lathon, it appears the statutory immunity granted under the LHEPA applies to any claim brought against any healthcare provider for acts that occur during a public health emergency. While it remains to be seen how courts will address this issue in the future, these decisions show the reach and application of the LHEPA continue to evolve.

References:
*Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Dep’t Ambulance Serv., 93-3099 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So. 2d 216.

^Lejeune v. Steck, 13-1017 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/21/14), 138 So. 3d 1280, writ denied sub nom. Daigle v. Steck, 2014-1408 (La. 10/3/14), 149 So. 3d 800.

^^Lathon v. Leslie Lakes Ret. Ctr., 54,479 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/21/22); 348 So.3d 888, writ denied, 2022-01566 (La. 12/20/22); 352 So.3d 80.