Chatman v. Southern University at New Orleans
197 So. 3d 366
| La. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Gloria Chatman was violently assaulted in her SUNO on‑campus two‑bedroom apartment on Jan. 18, 2010; she lost use of one eye. Her roommate Terneisha Sanders and Sanders’s 16‑year‑old cousin Jamisha participated; Sanders was criminally convicted.
- Chatman sued Southern University at New Orleans (SUNO) alleging negligence for failing to protect her from unauthorized non‑student/ minor visitors and for inadequate on‑site housing security and CA (community assistant) availability/enforcement.
- SUNO had written housing rules limiting occupants/overnight guests and employed CAs (student employees) plus campus police, but CAs’ contact info was not distributed and staffing/security coverage was limited. Chatman made repeated, unsuccessful efforts to contact her CA before the assault.
- A jury found SUNO 15% at fault, Sanders 70%, and Jamisha 15%, awarding total damages of $1,055,000; after apportionment the trial court entered judgment against SUNO for $158,250 and taxed costs to SUNO.
- SUNO appealed, arguing (1) no legal duty/liability for unforeseeable criminal attack (i.e., legal cause/scope), (2) inadequate jury instruction and verdict interrogatories on legal cause, and (3) erroneous assessment of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SUNO owed legal duty / whether plaintiff proved "legal cause" (scope of protection / ease of association) | Chatman: SUNO’s housing rules and CA/security program were intended to prevent harms from non‑students (like the minor intruder); the attack is the sort of risk easily associated with SUNO’s duty | SUNO: Criminal attack by roommate/friend over trivial dispute was unforeseeable and not the kind of risk its duties were meant to cover; no categorical duty | Court: Affirmed jury — legal cause is a mixed question of law and fact; sufficient ease‑of‑association existed given unauthorized minor living in unit, lax enforcement, and CA unavailability; no manifest error in jury finding |
| Adequacy of jury instructions re: legal cause | Chatman: Trial court’s standard duty/risk instructions fairly and reasonably covered foreseeability/"ease of association" and legal cause | SUNO: Trial court failed to give explicit legal‑cause/ease‑of‑association instruction and improperly collapsed cause‑in‑fact and legal cause; objected when court changed position mid‑deliberations | Court: No reversible error — jury instructions as a whole correctly stated law and were adequate; SUNO preserved objection but instruction sufficed (Chaisson analog) |
| Verdict form / interrogatories — omission of specific legal‑cause question | Chatman: SUNO waived by failing to timely request special interrogatory; jury had adequate opportunity | SUNO: Without a separate legal‑cause interrogatory the jury could not decide that separate element | Court: SUNO failed to timely object to verdict form (waiver); trial court’s interrogatories were acceptable and issues were preserved re: instructions; no reversal |
| Assessment of costs against SUNO | Chatman: Costs proper as part of judgment | SUNO: Costs should be reversed if judgment reversed | Court: Did not reach costs issue separately because judgment was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 923 So.2d 627 (La. 2006) (duty‑risk analysis and five negligence elements)
- Parents of Minor Child v. Charlet, 135 So.3d 1177 (La. 2014) (legal cause is a mixed question of law and fact for the jury)
- Chaisson v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 947 So.2d 171 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (jury charge that frames foreseeability/ease‑of‑association subsumed into duty/risk instruction)
- Faucheaux v. Terrebonne Consol. Gov’t, 615 So.2d 289 (La. 1993) (scope‑of‑protection / ease of association formulation)
- Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 673 So.2d 585 (La. 1996) (clarifying universities’ duties and limits)
- Cay v. State Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 631 So.2d 393 (La. 1994) (foreseeability of general manner of harm suffices for legal cause)
- Williams v. State of La., 786 So.2d 927 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2001) (university duty to implement reasonable measures to protect dormitory students when criminal acts are foreseeable)