150 So. 3d 657
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Rice-Land owned ~50,000 acres and leased parcels for hunting; Larson & McGowin managed the property; H & H Hunting Club leased 1,528 acres.
- Patrick Moore (decedent), an H & H member, was fatally shot by his father while walking toward a box stand placed at the intersection of fire lanes and a logging road during low light.
- Lease (Hunting License Agreement) and H & H rules prohibited hunting within 200 yards of "any roads or occupied building," and required members to follow lease rules; club officers placed and authorized the stand at the logging road.
- Plaintiff Christy Moore sued Rice-Land, Larson, H & H and insurer for wrongful death; defendants moved for summary judgment invoking Louisiana recreational-use immunity (La. R.S. 9:2791/2795).
- Plaintiff argued immunity was inapplicable because defendants (1) assumed safety duties in the lease/rules, (2) willfully violated those rules (placing the stand), and (3) operated a commercial recreational enterprise for profit.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lease/rules constituted an assumed duty removing owner immunity | Moore: lease/rules created affirmative safety duties (no hunting within 200 yards) so owners cannot claim recreational-use immunity | Defendants: parties are "owners" under the statute; allowing some safety rules does not abrogate immunity for owners as a matter of law | Held: No assumed-duty exception — owners remain protected; rules did not remove immunity |
| Whether willful or malicious conduct defeated immunity | Moore: club knowingly placed/allowed stand in violation of its rules and failed to warn, showing conscious indifference | Defendants: placement was not deliberate disregard; officers believed logging road was an internal shooting lane, not a prohibited boundary road | Held: No evidence of willful/malicious conduct; tragic accident, not conscious indifference |
| Whether the leases made the use a commercial recreational enterprise for profit | Moore: Rice-Land earned leasing revenue (argued profit) so immunity excluded | Defendants: hunting leases generated minimal income relative to timber operations; primary use was timber, not commercial recreation | Held: Use was not principally a commercial recreational enterprise; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consol. Gov't, 567 So.2d 1097 (La. 1990) (purpose of recreational-use statutes to induce landowners to open undeveloped land)
- Hayes v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 34 So.3d 1009 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2010) (R.S. 9:2791 and 9:2795 read together re: landowner liability)
- Souza v. St. Tammany Parish, 93 So.3d 745 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2012) (R.S. 9:2795 limits landowner liability for recreational use)
- Richard v. Hall, 874 So.2d 131 (La. 2004) (statutes in derogation of common law must be strictly construed; owner’s use, not classification, determines immunity)
- Johnson v. Lloyd’s of London, 653 So.2d 226 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1995) (owner immunity from simple negligence preserved; voluntary rules do not necessarily abrogate owner immunity)
- DeLafosse v. Village of Pine Prairie, 998 So.2d 1248 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2008) (definition of willful or malicious conduct as conscious course of action with indifference to consequences)
- Dear v. Crosby Chemicals, Inc., 670 So.2d 775 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1996) (land used primarily for timber and secondarily leased for hunting is not a commercial recreational enterprise)