74 So. 3d 766
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hurricane Rita (Sept. 2005) struck Calcasieu Parish; district’s pumping station at Pithon-Griffith was a key drainage asset with diesel pumps that require manual activation.
- District employees evacuated prior to the storm but left the Pithon-Griffith gate open and automated electric pumps in automatic mode; no written emergency plan was ever formulated.
- Power loss occurred around 9:00 p.m. on Friday, preventing electric pumps from operating; diesel pumps were not manned due to evacuation and lack of immediate activation.
- Residents in the Pithon-Griffith area flooded; plaintiffs alleged district negligence for failing to plan, evacuate appropriately, dredge coulees, automate pumps, and train personnel.
- A jury found the district negligent for failing to have a pre-storm plan and for not automating diesel pumps; American Alternative’s liability limited to policy limits.
- Trial court denied some immunity defenses; the appellate court affirmed the jury verdict, concluding immunity did not shield pre-disaster planning, but discretionary immunity may protect certain evacuation decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29:735 immunity and evacuation planning | Bordelon: immunity applies to emergency planning decisions surrounding evacuations. | District: immunity shields planning decisions under 29:735. | Immunity does not shield pre-disaster planning failures. |
| Discretionary immunity for evacuation decisions | Bordelon: no discretionary immunity to evacuation location choices beyond plan failures. | District: evacuation decisions are discretionary and immune under 9:2798.1. | Evacuation location decisions are discretionary; immunity may apply. |
| Discretionary immunity for pump automation | Bordelon: discretionary immunity does not apply to failure to automate pumps if grounded in policy. | District: automation decisions are discretionary and immune if policy-based. | Automation failure is not shielded by discretionary immunity; immunity does not attach. |
| Admission of Bedient's pump testimony | Bedient’s pump capacity opinions are relevant despite not being a pumping expert. | Bedient lacked pumping expertise; testimony should be limited. | Testimony admissible; proper under evidentiary rules; not reversible error. |
| Scope of immunity and overall verdict | Immunity analysis precludes liability for certain acts; error if immunity misapplied. | Discretionary immunity bars some claims; court should have directed verdict on certain issues. | The verdict affirming negligence on planning and automation issues stands; immunity not dispositive to all claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consol. Gov't, 567 So.2d 1097 (La. 1990) (strict interpretation of civil-immunity statutes)
- Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1 (La. 1989) (two-step discretionary-immunity analysis)
- Chicago Property Interests, L.L.C. v. Broussard, 9 So.3d 150 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (unpublished — immunity for emergency actions but not for preexisting policies)