247 So. 3d 1084
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Inmate Alvin Pete was struck in the left eye by a rock thrown by fellow inmate Freddie Handy while in the trustee yard at St. Martin Parish Jail, resulting in loss of sight and progressive sinking/disfigurement of the left eye after surgery.
- Pete sued Sheriff Ronald Theriot (official capacity) alleging negligence: inadequate supervision, failure to remove hazardous limestone aggregate, and inadequate training/policies; suit filed after an administrative grievance process dispute.
- The trial court denied the Sheriff’s exception of prematurity (failure to exhaust administrative remedies), credited Pete’s testimony that he submitted a handwritten ARP to Deputy Singleton, and found the Sheriff liable, awarding $50,000 in general damages.
- Trial evidence: yard covered with limestone aggregate; testimony that two deputies were assigned but only one (Deputy Newton) was proven present; Newton observed the incident but did not intervene; experts differed—Plaintiff’s expert criticized presence of aggregate and lack of supervision; Sheriff’s expert defended staffing standards but conceded he would not recommend aggregate in yards.
- On appeal both parties challenged aspects of the judgment: Sheriff argued prematurity ruling, liability, and failure to apportion fault to the rock-thrower; Pete argued the general-damages award was inadequate.
- Appellate court affirmed liability but found trial court erred by not apportioning comparative fault and by under-awarding general damages; it apportioned fault 80% to Sheriff / 20% to Handy and increased general damages to $150,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Pete: he complied with jail ARP by handing a handwritten grievance to Deputy Singleton; jail failed to follow its ARP procedures so failure to exhaust should be construed against jail | Sheriff: Pete did not file/complete ARP; exception of prematurity should be sustained | Denied exception; appellate court found trier of fact reasonably credited Pete and jail’s ARP administration failures are construed against it |
| Whether Sheriff was negligent for failure to supervise/train and for allowing limestone aggregate in trustee yard | Pete: presence of removable aggregate plus lack of adequate supervision/training made harm foreseeable and breached duty of care | Sheriff: staffing and supervision practices met standards; aggregate was not per se violation and staffing must be economically feasible | Liability affirmed: court found harm foreseeable, inadequate supervision and training, and aggregate increased risk; not manifestly erroneous |
| Whether fault should be apportioned to the rock-throwing inmate (comparative fault) | Pete: focused on Sheriff’s responsibility; did not oppose allocation to Handy but argued Sheriff bore greater fault | Sheriff: trial court should have allocated fault to Handy (the direct actor) | Appellate court found clear error in assigning all fault to Sheriff; apportioned 80% to Sheriff, 20% to Handy |
| Adequacy of general damages award for loss of left eye | Pete: $50,000 was inadequate given permanent vision loss, disfigurement, pain, and functional limitations; requested higher award | Sheriff: trial court’s $50,000 was reasonable | Appellate court found $50,000 abusively low and increased award to $150,000 (lowest amount reasonably supported by record) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Phelps, 672 So.2d 665 (La. 1996) (articulates duty-risk analysis for negligence)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for appellate review of credibility and manifest error)
- Breaux v. State, 326 So.2d 481 (La. 1976) (penal authorities must use reasonable care to prevent foreseeable inmate-on-inmate harm)
- Youn v. Mar. Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La. 1993) (standard for appellate review of quantum)
- Coco v. Winston Indus., 341 So.2d 332 (La. 1976) (limits on appellate modification of damage awards)