Luquette v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC
209 So. 3d 342
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan. 7, 2014 Lyle Luquette slipped and fell on ice in a carwash bay owned by Ron Keller (insured by Great Lakes Reinsurance). Photographs taken at the scene show water running from a hose and patches of clear ice on the bay floor. Weather reports show temperatures below 32°F for >18 hours.
- Keller installed an automatic freeze system that runs water through hoses continuously when outdoor temps drop below freezing; the system has no alert and Keller had no mandatory inspection/closure/sign procedure for freezing conditions.
- Luquette sought emergency and ongoing treatment for neck/back pain, including MRI and two epidural steroid injections. His treating orthopedist opined the fall caused or aggravated an L4-5 disc bulge; defense neuroradiologist disputed the bulge.
- Trial court found for defendants (plaintiff failed to meet burden); no written findings. Plaintiff appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed the complete record, concluded plaintiff proved liability under La. C.C. art. 2317.1, apportioned 25% comparative fault to plaintiff, and awarded reduced damages after a de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability under La. C.C. art. 2317.1 (owner/custodian liability for defective thing) | Keller created defect (ice caused by automatic freeze system) and should be liable because he knew or should have known and failed to take precautions | Defendants argued plaintiff failed to prove defect/knowledge and trial court found no liability | Reversed: plaintiff met burden—carwash in Keller’s custody; ice was a dangerous defect that caused the fall; Keller knew or should have known of the risk |
| Constructive vs. actual knowledge | Luquette argued constructive knowledge sufficed because ice existed long enough and system made ice predictable | Keller claimed lack of actual knowledge of ice that day and no notice of system activation | Court found constructive knowledge adequate given predictable operation of system and lack of precautions; concurrence added defendant’s installation of system created actual knowledge |
| Comparative fault (plaintiff’s conduct) | Luquette claimed he used the carwash ordinarily and did not cause the hazard | Defendants argued plaintiff should have observed icy/muddy/sudsy conditions and avoided washing in freezing weather | Court apportioned 25% fault to plaintiff for choosing to wash in freezing conditions and not watching for slippery floor |
| Damages — causation and quantum | Luquette relied on treating physician and records showing ongoing pain and injections | Defendants relied on litigation expert denying bulge and need for injections | Court credited treating physician over defense expert, awarded $40,000 general damages and $9,594.55 medical specials, reduced by 25% for comparative fault (final awards: $30,000 general; $7,195.91 special) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stobart v. State through Dep’t of Transp. and Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard for appellate review of factfinder credibility and manifest-error rule)
- Lomont v. Myer-Bennett, 172 So.3d 620 (La. 2015) (two-part test for reversing factfinder under manifest error)
- Hayes Fund for the First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mt., LLC, 193 So.3d 1110 (La. 2015) (appellate standard of review discussion)
- Barnes v. Bechtel Grp., Inc., 873 So.2d 735 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2004) (treating physician testimony generally entitled to more weight than litigation-only expert)