116 So. 3d 691
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gaudet tripped on a base plate left in the base path after groundskeepers repositioned bases at LaSalle Playground (Oct 1, 2010) and sued the Parish, Parks and Recreation, and Berkley Accident & Health for injuries.
- Parish answered with a strict immunity defense under La. Rev. Stat. 9:2795(E)(2)(a) shielding lands used for recreational purposes.
- Gaudet argued immunity does not apply because LaSalle Playground is not a commercial facility, excludes defective playground equipment, and concerns land defects rather than employee negligence.
- The trial court granted the exception of no cause of action; on appeal, the issue is whether the Parish’s immunity bars Gaudet’s negligence claims for the alleged gross negligence of employees in reconfiguring bases.
- LaSalle Playground is a public park in the Parish’s management; immunity question is reviewed de novo as a matter of law.
- Court reverses and remands, holding that the limitation of liability does not extend to grossly negligent acts by a public-entity employee and that the petition states a cause of action for negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RS 9:2795(E)(2)(a) immunize the Parish for injuries at a public park? | Gaudet: park immunity applies; land defects not required. | Parish: park immunity applies to recreational lands. | No immunity under the cited provision for gross negligence. |
| Does gross negligence by public-entity employees defeat immunity under RS 9:2795(E)(2)(d)? | Gaudet: employees’ gross negligence removes immunity. | Parish: immunity covers land, not gross negligence. | Gross negligence defeats immunity; remand for further proceedings. |
| Do defects in playground equipment fall within the immunity exclusion for parks? | Gaudet: equipment defects excluded from immunity. | Parish: statutory text excludes only some scenarios; not dispositive here. | Court does not resolve this issue fully due to reversal on gross negligence. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for a no-cause-of-action exception here? | Gaudet: de novo review appropriate per Cleco standard. | Parish: standard governs; no factual inquiry. | De novo review appropriate; issue decided on statutory interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleco Corp. v. Johnson, 01-0175 (La. 2001) (de novo review for no-cause-of-action rulings (law-based question))
- Webb v. Parish of St. Tammany, 06-849, 959 So.2d 921 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2007) (public park is open to the public and accommodates recreation—immunity context)
- Lambert v. State, 40,170, 912 So.2d 426 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2005) (public parks immunity context and related duties of care)