209 So. 3d 286
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Bruneau hired Crescent City (and its owners Hurst and Faucheux) in 2007 for housekeeping; Crescent City had a key and alarm code and was given a restriction that “one type of person” was not to be allowed in the home.
- On April 29, 2010, Hurst and Faucheux cleaned Bruneau’s home; Hurst’s son Gus (a convicted felon) accompanied them that day but allegedly was not permitted in certain rooms.
- On May 2, 2010 the home was burglarized; cash ($8,500) and some documents were taken from a safe inside an interior closet.
- NOPD found Gus had been in the house days earlier and recovered Gus’s fingerprints on the closet door, but no arrest warrant was issued (lack of probable cause) and searches produced no direct evidence linking Gus to the burglary.
- Bruneau sued for breach of contract and sought damages; the trial court found Crescent City breached the oral contract by allowing a person with a criminal history into the home and awarded $8,300 for property loss.
- On appeal the court reversed: although Crescent City breached its obligation by permitting Gus in the home, Bruneau failed to prove by a preponderance that Gus committed or facilitated the May 2 burglary, so causation and damages were not established.
Issues
| Issue | Bruneau's Argument | Crescent City’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crescent City breached its oral housekeeping contract by permitting a person with a criminal history into the home | Crescent City promised honesty/reliability and breached by allowing Gus in without disclosure/consent | No contractual term excluding people with criminal records was proven; testimony insufficient | Breach occurred: pamphlet and testimony showed a restriction and Crescent City allowed Gus in the home |
| Whether Gus more likely than not committed or facilitated the May 2 burglary | Gus’s presence days earlier and his criminal history make it more probable he was involved | Presence and past convictions alone insufficient; investigation produced no corroborative evidence tying Gus to the burglary | Held for Crescent City: court found insufficient proof that Gus facilitated the burglary |
| Whether Crescent City’s breach caused Bruneau’s $8,500 loss | Breach (allowing Gus in) caused the burglary and resulting loss | Causation not established because no proof Gus committed the burglary | Held for Crescent City: causation not proved by preponderance, so damages not attributable to breach |
| Personal liability of Hurst and Faucheux / piercing corporate veil | They acted or condoned breach, so personally liable | No basis to pierce veil absent proven corporate fault causing damages | Held for Crescent City’s owners: personal liability reversed because plaintiff did not prove causation/damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanga v. Perdomo, 167 So.3d 818 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2014) (elements of breach of contract and burden of proof)
- Favrot v. Favrot, 68 So.3d 1099 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (contract breach elements)
- Hayes Fund for the First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mt., LLC, 193 So.3d 1110 (La. 2015) (plaintiff bears preponderance burden; causation is a fact question)
- DBR Assocs., L.L.C. v. Burnell, 186 So.3d 1225 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2016) (oral contract over $500 requires corroboration)
- Sullivan v. City of Baton Rouge, 170 So.3d 186 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2015) (preponderance standard and use of circumstantial evidence)