George Peter Marse, III and Hilary Marse Individually and on behalf of their minor daughter, Annabella Marse v. Red Frog Events, LLC, First Specialty Insurance Corporation, James River Insurance Company, Peterson Builders, North South Renovations, Marcus M. Edwards, Daniel L. Lauber, Megan E. Gaseor, Mary A. Kreke, Emily A. Littlejohn, ABC Insurance Company, XYZ In
2019CA1525, 2019CA1528, 2019CA1527, 2019CA1526
La. Ct. App.Sep 18, 2020Background
- On Oct. 8, 2016, George Marse and his minor daughter Annabella were injured when a man-made obstacle (the "Diesel Dome") collapsed during the for-profit "Warrior Dash" obstacle-course event held on land owned/managed by the West Feliciana Parish Department of Parks and Recreation and leased to Red Frog Events, LLC.
- The Marses sued Red Frog, various contractors/insurers, event employees/agents, and the Department; their petition alleged the Department owed duties to license, inspect, and ensure safety of the structure and event.
- The Department filed an exception of no cause of action asserting statutory recreational-use immunity under La. R.S. 9:2795. The trial court sustained the exception and dismissed the claims against the Department with prejudice.
- The Marses appealed, arguing the statute did not apply to a man-made obstacle or a commercial event, that the Department had independent duties under general delict/thing-liability law, and that the trial court made improper factual findings.
- The Court of Appeal conducted de novo review, concluded La. R.S. 9:2795 applied, found no allegation of willful or malicious failure to warn, rejected the Marses’ reliance on general statutes (e.g., La. C.C. art. 2317.1), and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. R.S. 9:2795 recreational-use immunity applies to the Warrior Dash event/location | The event involved a large man-made structure and a for-profit obstacle course on undeveloped land, so immunity does not cover this instrumentality/commercial activity | The statute broadly immunizes public parks and lands used for recreational purposes, regardless of man-made features or leasing; immunity applies | Immunity under La. R.S. 9:2795 applies; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the Department owed a duty to license/inspect/ensure building-code compliance for the Diesel Dome | The Department, as property owner/governing authority, had a duty to license, inspect, and enforce safety/building codes for constructions on its land | The statute negates any assurance of safety and limits liability for defects in the land (except willful/malicious failure to warn); plaintiffs did not allege willful/malicious conduct | General duties under art. 2317.1 and similar statutes are displaced by the more specific recreational-use statute; no viable claim pleaded |
| Whether the trial court applied an improper legal standard or made improper factual findings when deciding the exception | The court purportedly engaged in improper factual inquiry (e.g., asking whether a building permit was required) and thus exceeded Rule 931 bounds | The judgment reflects consideration of pleadings, memoranda, law, and argument; review is de novo and no improper factual findings were made | Court properly applied the no-cause-of-action standard; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1234 (La. 1993) (standard for testing a peremptory exception of no cause of action)
- Reyer v. Milton Homes, LLC, 272 So. 3d 604 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2019) (appellate standard/de novo review for legal questions on exceptions)
- Fournerat v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 104 So. 3d 76 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2012) (purpose of La. R.S. 9:2795 to encourage landowners to make land available for recreation)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. La. Ins. Rating Com'n, 696 So. 2d 1021 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1997) (principle that the more specific statute governs over the general)