222 So. 3d 975
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- M/V NEW ROADS (owned by DOTD, operated by Capt. Lester Ledet) allided with a moored barge on the Mississippi River on March 20, 2013 during a pre-dawn crossing; six passengers (plaintiffs) were injured.
- Plaintiffs sued DOTD and Capt. Ledet alleging negligence and unseaworthiness (failure to keep proper lookout, failure to use spotlight or crew, improper navigation).
- Defendants asserted discretionary immunity under La. R.S. 9:2798.1 and argued Ledet acted reasonably given wind/current and unlit barges.
- The trial court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment (immunity) and involuntary dismissal, found Capt. Ledet negligent, and awarded damages to each plaintiff.
- On appeal, defendants challenged denial of summary judgment (discretionary immunity), denial of involuntary dismissal, and the apportionment of liability. The appellate court affirmed the trial judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOTD/Capt. Ledet are entitled to discretionary immunity under La. R.S. 9:2798.1 | Immunity doesn't shield operational negligence; Ledet made operational choices that caused the collision | Ledet exercised discretion as a public-employee captain performing maritime transportation and thus is immune | Denied: applicability of immunity is a fact question; summary judgment inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed |
| Whether plaintiffs met burden at close of their case (motion for involuntary dismissal) | Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence (testimony, medical proof) to establish duty, breach, causation, and damages by preponderance | Plaintiffs failed to prove fault; evidence showed barges were unlit and conditions excused Ledet | Denied: plaintiffs’ case-in-chief presented sufficient evidence to avoid involuntary dismissal |
| Whether Capt. Ledet was negligent in keeping lookout and navigating near moored barges | Ledet failed to use available precautions (spotlight, crew assistance), knew barges’ location, and proceeded in darkness/wind causing foreseeable allision | Ledet reasonably reacted to wind/current; barges were unlit/painted black and hard to see; no negligence shown | Affirmed: trial court’s factual finding of negligence was supported by record and not manifestly erroneous |
| Whether causation and damages were proven for passengers’ maritime claims | Plaintiffs: allision caused injuries; moving vessel alliding with stationary object raises presumption of fault and foreseeability | Defendants: lack of proof linking Ledet’s conduct to injuries or fault | Affirmed: causal connection and damages established; allision presumption and testimony supported liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Pouncy v. Winn-Dixie La., 178 So.3d 603 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standards and de novo appellate review)
- Banks v. Parish of Jefferson, 108 So.3d 1208 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2013) (two-step test for discretionary immunity and distinction between policy and operational acts)
- Johnson v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 975 So.2d 698 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008) (discretionary immunity framework discussed)
- Day v. Touchard, Inc., 712 So.2d 1072 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1998) (state courts apply maritime law to passenger injuries on vessels)
- The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1895) (presumption of fault when a moving vessel allides with a stationary object)