67 So. 3d 504
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bowie Lumber Associates owned land adjacent to Hwy 307 and leased adjoining land for sugar cane farming to Foret Farms, which subleased to Foret; Bowie granted a 60 ft right of way to DOTD; foreslope was removed, creating a drastic drop near the shoulder allegedly causing the accident.
- Daigre family filed suit in 2004 for wrongful death/survival against International, Fort Worth Fabrication, DOTD, Bowie; later amendments added Foret and Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.
- DOTD settled for $450,000 in 2009; International and Fort Worth settled with dismissal with prejudice in 2006 and 2007 respectively; Bowie/Foret remained as appellees.
- Bowie/Foret asserted immunity under La. R.S. 9:2800.4 (farm/forest land immunity) with exception for intentional acts or gross negligence; district court granted judgment on the pleadings in 2010 applying immunity and law-of-the-case rationale.
- Plaintiffs argued immunity should be strictly construed against immunity and that facts could show intentional acts or gross negligence; court affirmed dismissal, holding decedent not lawfully on the land and immunity applicable; issues focused on whether the land was farmland under 9:2800.4, whether decedent was unlawfully on the land, and whether acts fell within the intentional/gross-negligence exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the accident site falls within La. R.S. 9:2800.4 as farmland. | Daigre argues the land was within the statute's scope. | Bowie/Foret contend the land qualifies as farmland immune from liability. | Yes, immunity applies; site treated as farmland under 9:2800.4. |
| Whether the decedent was unlawfully on the property under 9:2800.4. | Daigre claims decedent was on land lawfully or that immunity should not apply due to constructively invitee status. | Defendants assert decedent left roadway and was unlawfully on land, invoking immunity. | Decedent was not shown to be lawfully on the land; immunity applies. |
| Whether the acts of defedants constitute an intentional act or gross negligence under 9:2800.4. | Alleges intentional acts or gross negligence by usurping foreslope to increase farming area. | Argues acts do not meet the narrow intentional act/gross negligence standard. | No substantial evidence of intentional act or gross negligence; immunity stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capone v. Ormet, 822 So.2d 684 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2002) (should not drive off the pavement; driving on shoulder is unlawful)
- White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205 (La.1991) (defines 'intent' in workers' compensation context; substantial certainty standard)
- Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., 731 So.2d 208 (La. 1999) (intent when OSHA standards are violated; not per se intentional act)
- Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La.1981) (narrow construction of 'intentional act' exception; safety violations not per se intentional acts)
- Ables v. Minvielle, 22 So.3d 1129 (La.App.3 Cir. 2009) (adopted definition of 'intentional act' for immunity context)
- Velten (Bank One, Nat. Ass’n v. Velten), 917 So.2d 454 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs appellate trial rulings in same case)
- Jasmin v. HNV Cent. Riverfront Corp., 642 So.2d 311 (La.App.4 Cir. 1994) (limits on implied duties and remedies in safety contexts)
- Armstead v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, 618 So.2d 1140 (La.App.4 Cir. 1993) (cites limitations on employer liability for safety standards violations)