Cennett v. Arceneaux
119 So. 3d 670
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Rodney Arceneaux owned rental property at 1157, 1161, and 1165 Orange Blossom Lane in Harvey, LA.
- Linda Cennett rented 1165, Apartment D (2002–2004); Sabrina Hopson rented 1161, Apartment B (2002–2005).
- Plaintiffs alleged exposure to raw sewage and sewage-contaminated soil near their apartments beginning December 4, 2003.
- Suit filed November 22, 2004 against Arceneaux and Consolidated Sewerage District No. 1; claimed health problems from exposure.
- Trial court granted preclusion of expert testimony, granted summary judgment against Consolidated Sewerage District No. 1, and later trial on the merits against Arceneaux.
- Trial court found Plaintiffs credible, awarded Cennett $4,000 and Hopson $6,000 in general damages; Arceneaux’s appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and defect proof | Arceneaux breached a duty by allowing a defective premises causing sewage issues. | No proven defect on Arceneaux's property or control of the ditch; no breach proven. | Court affirmed; sufficient proof of defect and breach supported judgment. |
| Causation | Arceneaux's actions cause-in-fact of damages shown by witnessing sewage exposure. | No medical proof tying ailments to sewage exposure; no prima facie case. | Court affirmed; trial court's cause-in-fact findings upheld. |
| Damages and quantum | Damages for general harm including mental distress allowed. | No specific medical expenses; mental distress requires physical damages or special circumstances. | Court affirmed general damages awards; quantified as $4,000 and $6,000 with general damages deemed permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Coleman, 786 So.2d 170 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2001) (proof of a defect essential to liability under Art. 2696)
- Montecino v. Bunge Corp. Inc., 895 So.2d 603 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2005) (preponderance standard; defect must cause damages)
- Gregoire v. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, 92 So.3d 932 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2012) (trial court credibility findings reviewed with deference)
- Beausejour v. Percy, 996 So.2d 625 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (general vs. special damages; innate speculative nature of general damages)
- Schouest v. Burr, 30 So.3d 1017 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (quantum determination is a fact issue accorded deference on review)