254 So. 3d 714
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On March 16, 2014, a rotten tree in a Natchez Trace subdivision common area fell on minor Brady Doyle while he played soccer, causing severe injuries.
- Plaintiffs sued developer Lonesome Development, Natchez Trace Property Owners Association (homeowners association), Renaissance Property Management (manager), and insurers, alleging negligence and breach of duties under recorded Restrictive Covenants and a management contract.
- Lonesome originally developed the subdivision and later transferred most common areas to Natchez Trace; Natchez Trace contracted Renaissance to manage and maintain common areas; homeowners paid quarterly dues.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting recreational-use immunity under La. R.S. 9:2791 and 9:2795; the trial court granted summary judgment for Natchez Trace but denied others; appeal followed.
- The appellate court reviewed whether Natchez Trace qualified for recreational-use immunity (and exceptions), and whether contractual claims against Natchez Trace were disposed of by the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of recreational-use immunity | Doyle: common areas were commercial/restricted to dues-paying homeowners so immunity shouldn't apply | Natchez Trace: HOA is an owner in control of land used for recreation; statutes apply even if access is limited | Court: Immunity statutes apply; soccer is a recreational purpose; "land" includes urban/residential areas after 2001 amendment |
| Commercial-enterprise exception | Doyle: subdivision amenities were created to enhance sales and dues show commercial benefit, so Natchez Trace not immune | Natchez Trace: HOA is non-profit and dues used for maintenance, not profit; use not principally for commercial recreation | Court: Natchez Trace's use was not principally a commercial recreational enterprise; immunity not defeated by dues evidence |
| Willful/malicious-failure-to-warn exception | Doyle: prior tree removals and transfer inspection establish knowledge or conscious indifference | Natchez Trace: no actual knowledge of this specific diseased tree; no evidence of conscious indifference | Court: Plaintiffs presented no evidence of willful or malicious failure to warn; immunity stands for delictual claims |
| Contractual claims against Natchez Trace | Doyle: alleged entitlement as direct/third-party beneficiary of Restrictive Covenants/management contract; SJ motion didn’t address these claims | Natchez Trace: plaintiffs did not plead a contractual claim against it; SJ properly addressed negligence claims only | Court: Motion did not address contractual claims; summary judgment was only partial. Delictual claims affirmed; contractual claims reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Keelen v. State, Dept. of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, 463 So.2d 1287 (La. 1985) (statutes 9:2791 and 9:2795 relate and are construed together)
- Richard v. Hall, 874 So.2d 131 (La. 2004) (distinguishes principal commercial recreational use; clarifies scope between 9:2791 and 9:2795)
- Fournerat v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 104 So.3d 76 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2012) (interprets post-amendment scope of 9:2795 and statutory construction)
- Van Pelt v. Morgan City Power Boat Ass'n, Inc., 489 So.2d 1346 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1986) (fee-charging does not automatically negate recreational-use immunity)
- Benoit v. City of Lake Charles, 907 So.2d 931 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2005) (urban/developed parks fall within "land" after 2001 amendment)
- Moore v. Rice-Land Lumber Co., 150 So.3d 657 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2014) (use principally for timber sales did not negate immunity where recreational use was not principal profit source)
- Price v. Exxon Corp., 664 So.2d 1273 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1995) (defines "willful" as conscious course of action showing indifference to consequences)
- Souza v. St. Tammany Parish, 93 So.3d 745 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must present evidence of knowledge or willful failure to warn to overcome immunity)
- Deumite v. State, 692 So.2d 1127 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1997) (historic three-part test for recreational-use scope, superseded by statutory amendments)
- Domingue v. Stanley, 784 So.2d 844 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2001) (statutory language precludes denying immunity solely because access was limited to less than the public)