Louisiana Court is Clear: Res Ipsa Loquitur of Little Use in Pool Defect Case

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Louisiana legislature enacted and modified several statutes to limit the liability of individuals, businesses, and government agencies for exposure claims. However, the immunity is not absolute. While the immunity applies to “ordinary” negligence claims, it does not apply where acts are grossly negligent, wanton, or involve reckless misconduct. Further, as a condition to the protection afforded, the entity must show substantial compliance with the applicable COVID-19 procedures established by government authorities.

La. R.S. 9:2800.25, entitled “Limitation of liability for COVID-19” (the general immunity statute) provides that no person, business, or government entity shall be liable for injury or death resulting from exposure to COVID-19 through the performance of its business operations unless the entity failed to substantially comply with at least one set of procedures established by the federal, state, or local agency that governs the business operations, or the injury was caused by gross negligence or wanton, reckless misconduct. With respect to employer immunity, the statute provides that, regardless of whether an employee’s COVID-19 illness is covered under workers’ compensation law, the employee shall have no tort-based remedy against his employer unless the exposure was caused by an intentional act.

The exception to immunity in the general immunity statute calls into question the type of conduct that would rise to a level of gross negligence. Gross negligence is defined in Louisiana case law as “willful, wanton, reckless conduct that falls between intent to do wrong and ordinary negligence,” “lack of even slight care and diligence,” and “utter, complete or extreme lack of care.” While the definition does not provide a bright line rule, it reflects that the conduct must move well beyond simple negligence to defeat immunity.

For a business seeking to manage the risks arising from COVID-19, some best practices emerge: (1) monitor the COVID-19 procedures of government authorities to keep informed of the latest recommended or mandated procedures, (2) institute compliance protocols, (3) document and administer those procedures to show compliance, and (4) most obviously, avoid actions or omissions that may be construed as grossly negligent, wanton, or reckless.

Mary Anne Wolf is an engineer/attorney with a construction background who represents design professionals, contractors and others in construction litigation. She also gives seminars on the subject. She enjoys travel, yoga and encouraging her husband in his gardening and cooking endeavors.

Louisiana’s “anti-dram shop” statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.1, limits the ability of a claimant to hold a provider of alcohol liable for damages resulting from the acts of an intoxicated patron. Subsection A of the statute declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the sale, serving, or providing of those beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury or property damage that the consumer may cause. Under Subsection B, anyone who lawfully serves alcohol to a person of legal age is provided immunity for any injury caused by the consumer that occurs “off the premises.” This immunity extends to sellers of alcohol and social hosts.

The Louisiana Second Circuit recently examined these provisions of this statute in Rugg v. Horseshoe Entertainment, et. al. The plaintiff alleged she was injured when an intoxicated patron (John Doe) fell onto her at a hotel bar. She alleged that the defendant, which operated a casino bar, was liable because it ignored multiple complaints about John Doe’s drunken state prior to the incident and failed to escort him out.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Louisiana’s anti-dram shop statute prevented any finding of liability on its part. In opposing the summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that the statute did not rule out liability because the injury occurred on the premises.

The Second Circuit determined that the immunity afforded in Subsection B of the statute was not available because, as the plaintiff argued, the injury occurred on the premises. However, Subsection A of the statute, which declares the consumption, not the serving, of alcohol is the proximate cause of injury inflicted by an intoxicated person, still applied.

Under these circumstances, the Court held it had to determine whether the bar owner violated general negligence principles. In conducting this analysis, the court was required to focus on two issues: 1) whether the alcohol provider acted reasonably under the circumstances, and 2) whether the alcohol provider took any “affirmative acts” that increased the chances of the incident.

The Court of Appeal granted summary judgment under the facts of the case. The court found no evidence in the record that Horseshoe acted unreasonably leading up to the incident. Testimony indicated that the complaints about John Doe’s behavior arose after the incident occurred, not before. Similarly, the court reasoned that the failure to escort John Doe out of the bar was not an “affirmative act” that increased the risk of the incident because the record did not indicate Horseshoe had any reason to do so prior to the injury.

In conclusion, the court noted “that in no case will the serving of alcohol be held as the proximate cause of a tort in which alcohol was involved.” Therefore, the plaintiff had to show Horseshoe did something more to cause her injury than just serve John Doe alcohol. Because the plaintiff failed to do so, summary judgment was granted. Under these facts, Louisiana’s dram shop statute still applied to protect the defendant provider of alcohol, even though the injury occurred on its premises and the statutory immunity was not available.

References:

La. R.S. 9:2800.1

Mechelle Rugg v. Horseshoe Entertainment, et al., 55,239 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/24), 2024 WL 104143.

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.