382 So.3d 345
La. Ct. App.2023Background
- Ruben E. Williams filed suit against Touro Infirmary after falling from a wheeled chair in the hospital's waiting room while awaiting radiation treatment for prostate cancer.
- Williams claimed the chair suddenly rolled out from under him, causing injuries to his shoulders, hands, and hip.
- Touro moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence of gross negligence or willful misconduct as required by Louisiana's Health Emergency Powers Act (LHEPA) during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
- The district court granted summary judgment in Touro’s favor, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to Touro’s liability.
- Williams appealed, arguing the district court misapplied both the premises liability standard and the LHEPA, and raised constitutional challenges to the statute's applicability.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, reviewing the record de novo using the duty/risk negligence framework and considering the statutory immunity provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Touro owe and breach a duty under premises liability? | Touro breached a duty by placing an unsafe wheeled chair without warning. | The chair was not unreasonably dangerous; no prior incidents; open and obvious. | Touro did not breach any duty; no evidence of unreasonable risk. |
| Does LHEPA apply to non-COVID-related hospital incidents? | LHEPA shouldn't apply to general premises liability unrelated to COVID. | Statute applies broadly to all health care providers during public health emergencies, irrespective of relation to COVID. | LHEPA applies; but Williams’ claim fails under general negligence too. |
| Is LHEPA unconstitutionally overbroad or vague? | Statute grants blanket immunity even when not related to emergency treatment. | Statute is clear; constitutionality should not be reached unless necessary. | Constitutional challenge is moot; not addressed due to other rulings. |
| Were there issues of material fact precluding summary judgment? | Affidavit and allegations create genuine disputes about chair's danger and location. | No genuine issues; plaintiff’s affidavit is self-serving and inconsistent; no proof chair was dangerous. | No genuine issues; summary judgment was appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 359 So.3d 467 (La. 2023) (Duty/risk analysis applies similarly under general negligence and premises liability, focusing on breach and unreasonable risk)
- Johnson v. Evanston Ins. Co., 368 So.3d 703 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2023) (Outlines elements of duty/risk analysis for negligence claims)
- Smith v. New Orleans Casino, 101 So.3d 507 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (Swivel chair in public area not unreasonably dangerous absent defect or prior incidents)
- Perrin v. Ochsner Baptist Med. Ctr., LLC, 364 So.3d 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2019) (Hospitals owe visitors a general negligence duty, less than duty owed by merchants)
- Ernest v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 703 So.2d 1380 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1997) (Self-serving affidavits and inconsistent testimony do not create genuine issue for summary judgment)