Louisiana Appeal Courts Prohibit Direct Negligence Claims Against Employer; US District Court Uses Rule to Limit Discovery

Louisiana premises liability law continues to evolve in the wake of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Broussard v. State, 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013). The Broussard decision was believed to limit the application of the open and obvious defense in the context of a Motion for Summary Judgment on liability.On February 18, 2014, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided Gustafson v. Priority Electric, Inc., et al, 2013 CA 1096, 2014 WL 647704 (2/18/14) (not designated for publication), providing additional insight as to how Broussard will affect the applicability of the open and obvious defense. Based on Gustafson, the open and obvious defense may still be alive in the context of a Motion for Summary Judgment.While the Gustafson's home was under construction, Ms. Gustafson entered the home unescorted. She stood facing a newly repainted wall and took several steps backward to broaden her perspective of the wall. As she walked backwards, she tripped on one of two unfinished PVC conduit "stub-outs" containing electrical wire that would ultimately service floor-mounted outlets in an adjoining den. The lawsuit ensued.Priority Electric filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the stub-out presented an open and obvious condition that was readily discoverable had plaintiff exercised reasonable care. The company further argued that it had no duty to warn. The Trial Court agreed that the stub-out was an open and obvious condition and granted the motion.The Appellate Court conducted a de novo. The defendants argued, and the Trial Court agreed, that "if a defect is obvious and apparent, then there is no correlative duty to warn of its existence." Citing Broussard, the Appellate Court found that statement to be a misstatement of the law, noting that Broussard's analytic framework for evaluating an unreasonable risk of harm is classified as a determination of whether a defendant breached a duty owed, rather than a determination of whether a duty is owed ab initio.In light of Broussard, the Trial Court's reasoning underlying the grant of summary judgment was flawed. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court found a basis to support the Trial Court's dismissal of the claims utilizing a "risk-utility" analysis considering multiple factors.

1. Utility of the Stub-Outs

The necessity and utility of the stub-outs was not disputed.

2. Likelihood and Magnitude of Harm

The decision turned on this element. The utility of the stub-outs must be weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of harm presented by their defective condition, including whether the defect was open and obvious. The plaintiffs did not make a showing that any of the numerous contractors, subcontractors or visitors to the premises ever tripped. They also failed to offer expert testimony to show that the stub-outs presented an unreasonable risk of harm. Instead, they relied solely on the testimony of Ms. Gustafson, who admitted she was walking backwards and not paying attention. Unlike in Broussard, there was no evidence that the stub-outs were not "open and obvious to all who encountered them..."3. Cost of Preventing the HarmNo expert testimony was presented to show that the use of PVC stub-outs was unconventional in a new home or that there were reasonable alternatives to their use. No evidence was presented to show how the stub-outs could have been better placed or made more visible.　 Although plaintiffs argued that warning cones should have been in place, no evidence was presented to show that the contrast of the blue pipes on the gray cement was insufficient to alert an unsuspecting person.4. Nature of Plaintiff's ActivityPlaintiff was walking backwards when she fell. She acted unreasonably. The home was under construction and could have encountered a number of hazards. She failed to offer countervailing evidence on this issue.Upon balancing all of the factors above, all evidence showed that the accident would not have occurred "but for" Ms. Gustafson's own inattention and negligence.

Louisiana courts traditionally have ruled claims of administrative negligence fell outside of the purview of the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA). Courts found the LMMA applied strictly to cases “arising from medical malpractice.” In cases where Plaintiffs argued medical administrative failure, courts applied general tort law. This meant that the LMMA’s key protections— the statutory cap on damages and the requirement for a pre-suit medical review panel— did not apply to claims based on alleged administrative failures.

The following cases illustrate this point:

• In LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., Plaintiff alleged a hospital failed to maintain its life-support equipment and implement emergency evacuation plans.^
• In Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., Plaintiff alleged the hospital failed to provide him with equipment in proper working condition, to keep his bed in lowest position with wheels locked, and to properly instruct him on proper use and safety of his bed.*
• In Scio v. University Med. Mgmt. Corp., Plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to implement policies to ensure that follow up appointments were properly communicated.^^
• In Billeaudeau v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth., Plaintiff alleged the hospital was negligent in its credentialing of a doctor in the emergency department.**

The Louisiana Supreme Court used the “Coleman factors” established in Coleman v. Deno^^^ to determine whether the alleged conduct in these cases could constitute “malpractice.” These factors assess (1) whether the alleged conduct is treatment-related, (2) whether expert testimony is required to examine the claim, (3) whether assessment of the patient’s condition was involved, (4) whether it involves a physician-patient relationship, (5) whether the injury would have occurred absent treatment, and (6) whether the act was intentional. Considering these factors in each of the cases outlined above, the Court found the LMMA did not apply.

However, recent legislative amendments expanded the LMMA’s scope and raise questions about how these cases would be decided now. Effective August 1, 2025, new amendments broaden the definitions of “health care” and “malpractice” under La. R.S. 40:1231.1 to include administrative and managerial actions that are necessary for delivering medical care. While the full text of the new statute should be considered when evaluating any pending or potential claims, a summary is provided here.

Under the amended statute:

“Health care” now includes any act, treatment, “administration, service, or care related to policies and procedures and the administration thereof, staffing, custodial services by licensed or certified staff…” Further, the amendment expressly provides that the definition of health care “includes all acts associated with the medical treatment of an individual, whether directly related to clinical care or performed in an administrative or managerial capacity necessary for the delivery of such care.”

Additionally, under the amendment, the definition of “malpractice” now explicitly covers all acts tied to staffing and expressly includes “all acts associated with the medical treatment of an individual, whether directly related to clinical care or performed in an administrative or managerial capacity necessary for the delivery of such care.”

These amendments suggest the cases outlined above may have been decided differently if they were filed today. However, it remains to be seen how courts will apply these changes moving forward.

References:

^ LaCoste v. Pendleton Methodist Hosp., LLC, 07-0008 (La. 9/5/07), 966 So. 2d 519.

* Blevins v. Hamilton Med. Ctr., Inc., 2007-127 (La. 6/29/07), 959 So. 2d 440, 442, 443.

^^ Scio v. University Med. Mgmt. Corp., 19-1319 (La. 10/21/19), 280 So. 3d 1135.

** Billeaudeau v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth., 2016-0846 (La. 10/19/16), 218 So. 3d 513, 515.

^^^ Coleman v. Deno, 2001-1517 (La. 1/25/02), 813 So. 2d 303, 316.

The 1^st Circuit Court of Appeal recently ruled that a Plaintiff is prohibited from maintaining a direct negligence claim (negligent hire, negligent supervision, etc.) against an employer when the defendant/employer admits the employee was in the course and scope of the employment, stating:

“(A) plaintiff cannot maintain a direct negligence claim, such as negligent hiring, training, supervision, etc., against an employer, while simultaneously maintaining a claim against the negligent employee for which the plaintiff seeks to hold the employer vicariously liable, after the employer had admitted that the employee was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the alleged conduct.” See Elee v. White, - - So. 3d - - (La. App. 1 Cir 7/24/20) 2020 WL 4251974.

The ruling in Elee joins the Louisiana 5^th Circuit court of appeal which entered a similar ruling. See Landry v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, 289 So.3d 177 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/19).

Meanwhile, the federal courts in Louisiana, under the Erie doctrine, reached differing results. In Thomas v. Chambers, 2019 WL 1670745 (E.D. La. 2019)(Vance, J.) and Dennis v. Collins, 2016 WL 6637973 (W.D. La. 2016 (Hicks, J.), the District Courts acknowledged the holding outlined above. However, Judge Cain, sitting in the Lake Charles division of the Western District ruled to the contrary. See Roe v. Safety National, 18-cv-1353 (W.D. La. 2020).

But, what happens when the defendants further admit sole fault for the accident? The result was discussed in Ferguson v. Lenoir et al. Notably, Magistrate Judge Hornsby, ruling on defendants’ request for a protective order, found that defendants admission of fault eliminated the need to reconcile the different rulings when it found that “(no) evidence of (employer’s) negligent hiring, training, supervision or entrustment can raise (employer’s) percentage of fault above 100.” See Case 5:17-cv-01570-SMH-MLH Document 90 Filed 06/30/20 (p 2 of 6). As a natural consequence of this rule, the court recognized that a protective order limiting further discovery was appropriate. Plaintiff appealed the magistrate’s Order, but US District Judge Hicks denied Plaintiff’s appeal and affirmed Judge Hornsby’s ruling. Case 5:17-cv-01570-SMH-MLH Document 122 Filed 09/22/20.

John has been practicing over 30 years and is a Senior Partner with firm where he serves on the Management Committee. He has devoted attention to non-profit boards dedicated to assisting at risk children. He enjoys time with his three children and grandchildren. He also enjoys tennis and hiking.