182 So. 3d 351
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- In Aug. 2014 Eric Girtley, a wheelchair user, sued after being struck while crossing Loyola Blvd.; he alleged a nearby streetlight was not functioning.
- Girtley sued Entergy Louisiana, claiming Entergy was contractually obligated to inspect/maintain the streetlight (via a Jefferson Parish contract) and that its failure proximately caused his injuries.
- Entergy filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action; the trial court sustained them and dismissed Girtley’s claims with prejudice.
- On appeal Girtley argued the Entergy–Jefferson Parish contract created a stipulation pour autrui (third‑party beneficiary) in favor of parish citizens, giving him a direct cause/right of action.
- The court reviewed the petition de novo: exhibits attached to the petition are considered, but the contract was not attached and the petition only pleaded conclusory contractual obligations.
- The court held (1) no general legal duty exists for a power company to provide streetlighting absent a binding obligation to the claimant, (2) the petition failed to state facts establishing such a contractual duty or a stipulation pour autrui, and (3) amendment would not cure the defects; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Entergy owed a legal duty to Girtley for streetlight maintenance | Entergy contracted with Jefferson Parish to maintain lights; that creates a duty to pedestrians like Girtley | No general duty exists for a power company to provide/maintain streetlighting for non‑contracting third parties | No cause of action: petition does not allege a cognizable duty to Girtley |
| Whether Girtley is a third‑party beneficiary (stipulation pour autrui) of the Entergy–Parish contract | The contract was for public safety; it manifestly benefits parish citizens and thus creates enforceable third‑party rights | Any benefit to citizens is merely incidental to the contract between Entergy and the Parish; Girtley is not a contracting party | No right of action: petition lacks allegations showing a clear, certain, non‑incidental stipulation pour autrui |
| Whether the court may consider the Entergy–Parish contract on exception of no cause of action | The contract is in the record on appeal and would show Entergy’s obligations | The petition did not attach or sufficiently allege the contract’s terms, so its contents cannot be considered on exception | Contract not attached to petition; court may not consider it on the exception — conclusory allegations insufficient |
| Whether amendment could cure the petition | Girtley argued he could plead the contract/beneficiary status if allowed to amend | Entergy maintained defects weren’t curable in light of law and pleadings | Court found any amendment could not establish a non‑incidental third‑party right here; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. La. Power & Light, 951 So.2d 1058 (La. 2007) (standard and review for exception of no cause of action)
- Shafouk Nor El Din Hamza v. Bourgeois, 493 So.2d 112 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1986) (no general duty for power company to provide/maintain streetlighting; benefit to public is incidental)
- Joseph v. Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 2, 939 So.2d 1206 (La. 2006) (three‑part test for stipulation pour autrui / third‑party beneficiary)
- Allen & Currey Mfg. Co. v. Shreveport Waterworks Co., 37 So. 980 (La. 1905) (illustration that public utility contracts for municipal benefit may create only incidental benefits to inhabitants)
- Burdis v. Lafourche Parish Police Jury, 542 So.2d 117 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1989) (affirming no cause/right of action where plaintiff was only an incidental beneficiary of parish–utility contract)