Scott v. City of Shreveport
169 So. 3d 770
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- On April 13, 2011, Officer J.M. Bassett encountered Jessie Scott Jr. at 251 E. 72nd St.; an encounter escalated and the officer used a Taser on Scott. Scott was handcuffed, taken to the station, complained of chest pain, and was transported to LSUHSC where he suffered a heart attack and underwent cardiac catheterization.
- Jessie and his wife Patricia sued the City of Shreveport alleging negligence and that prolonged tasing caused Jessie’s heart attack; Patricia claimed loss of consortium.
- The City moved for summary judgment arguing the Scotts lacked medical evidence linking the Taser use to the heart attack.
- The Scotts relied on Jessie’s statement that a doctor told him the Taser caused the heart attack and a 2012 article suggesting tasers can trigger heart trouble.
- The treating cardiologist, Dr. Jai Varma, testified that Scott had a severe heart attack due to >90% blockage of his right coronary artery; he stated the causal link between electrical shock/tasing and heart attack is unclear and that arrhythmias (which electrical shock can cause) usually do not trigger heart attacks.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City; the court of appeal affirmed, finding the Scotts produced only speculation and insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: Did tasing cause Jessie Scott’s heart attack? | Tasing caused arrhythmias that contributed to or caused the heart attack; doctor allegedly told Scott so and a medical article supports possibility. | No admissible medical evidence links the tasing to the heart attack; only speculation and plaintiff’s self‑serving statement. | Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence of causation. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to defeat summary judgment | Plaintiff need only point to evidence creating factual dispute; the doctor’s alleged statement and article suffice. | Under La. summary judgment law, conclusory statements and speculation are insufficient; plaintiff must show evidence adequate to meet trial burden. | Held that mere speculation/conclusory assertions are insufficient; no genuine issue of material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (summary judgment procedural standard and requirements)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La. 1987) (elements of negligence/duty‑risk framework)
- Babin v. Winn‑Dixie La., 764 So.2d 37 (La. 2000) (opponent’s burden to produce evidence to defeat summary judgment)
- Slade v. State ex rel. Univ. of La. at Monroe, 79 So.3d 463 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2011) (mere speculation and conclusory allegations cannot defeat summary judgment)