Moore v. Choice Foundation
274 So. 3d 33
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- On August 2, 2016 the Moores sued Lafayette Academy Charter School (d/b/a Choice Foundation) and paraprofessional Karen Lewis for negligence after their non‑verbal autistic son ("Little Jerry") was injured at school on August 19, 2015.
- Plaintiffs alleged Lewis failed to properly supervise Little Jerry and the school was vicariously liable; plaintiffs also alleged the stairs were a hazardous condition.
- Defendants did not answer; plaintiffs obtained a preliminary default and, at a confirmation hearing on October 19, 2017, the district court confirmed a default judgment awarding $417,249.32.
- Defendants moved for a new trial; the district court denied the motion on April 2, 2018. Defendants appealed.
- The appellate majority vacated the default judgment and reversed the denial of a new trial, holding plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie case because critical proof of breach and causation was inadmissible hearsay and there was no eyewitness testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to confirm default (prima facie negligence) | Moores: affidavits and testimony of parents show duty, injuries, and probability of liability | School/Lewis: plaintiffs failed to introduce competent admissible evidence of breach and causation | Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie negligence; default vacated |
| Admissibility / hearsay at confirmation hearing | Moores relied on accident report, parent affidavits, and statements relayed from school staff | Defendants argued those statements are hearsay and cannot support confirmation | Held: Hearsay cannot sustain confirmation; rules of evidence apply and plaintiffs offered inadmissible proof of how the accident occurred |
| Failure to call critical witness (Lewis) | Moores: did not call Lewis; relied on other evidence and parents’ affidavits | Defendants: unexplained default; but were absent at confirmation | Held: Plaintiffs’ unexplained failure to call Lewis (who had peculiar knowledge) supports presumption her testimony would be unfavorable to plaintiffs |
| Motion for new trial standard / appellate review | Moores: trial court properly exercised discretion denying new trial | Defendants: new trial warranted because judgment contrary to law/evidence and defendants were deprived of their day in court | Held: Appellate court reviews denial for abuse of discretion and found denial erroneous because judgment was contrary to law and evidence; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Arias v. Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C., 9 So.3d 815 (La. 2009) (confirmation of default requires admissible evidence proving a prima facie case)
- Sessions & Fishman v. Liquid Air Corp., 616 So.2d 1254 (La. 1993) (elements of prima facie case must be established with competent evidence)
- Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 646 So.2d 318 (La. 1994) (duty/risk analysis elements for negligence)
- Wallmuth v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 813 So.2d 341 (La. 2002) (schools' supervisory duty when they accept custody of students)