348 So.3d 888
La. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Plaintiff Toni Lathon slipped on liquid Kool-Aid in Leslie Lakes Retirement Center and sued for personal injuries; the spill was caused by employee Latoria Willis.
- The incident occurred during an active public health emergency (COVID), and the defendant is a healthcare provider.
- Defendant invoked La. R.S. 29:771(B)(2)(c) — immunity for health care providers during a public health emergency except for gross negligence or willful misconduct.
- Trial court denied defendant’s exception of no cause of action and later denied both parties’ cross motions for summary judgment; appellate court ordered clarification and the trial court ruled the statute applied but again denied defendant’s MSJ.
- On review, the appellate court held the immunity statute covers the plaintiff’s premises-based personal-injury claim because the spill was causally connected to COVID protocols (food delivery to rooms).
- Court found plaintiff failed to produce prima facie evidence of gross negligence (only security-camera videos in the record) and therefore granted defendant’s MSJ, dismissed the suit with prejudice, and taxed costs to plaintiff.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. R.S. 29:771(B)(2)(c) immunity applies to a premises liability slip-and-fall during a public health emergency | Lathon: immunity should not extend to non-medical/premises claims | Leslie Lakes: statute applies to "any health care provider" and "any injury" during a public health emergency | Held: Statute applies; the spill was causally connected to COVID protocols so immunity covers the claim |
| Whether plaintiff proved gross negligence (exception to immunity) | Lathon: evidence raises genuine issue of gross negligence | Leslie Lakes: plaintiff has not produced prima facie evidence of gross negligence | Held: Plaintiff failed to meet burden; only security video in record does not establish gross negligence |
| Whether prior denial of exception of no cause of action or writ denial bars defendant’s MSJ (res judicata / law of the case) | Lathon: prior rulings preclude defendant from seeking same relief via MSJ | Leslie Lakes: res judicata and law-of-the-case are inapplicable to interlocutory rulings/writ denials | Held: Res judicata and law-of-the-case doctrines do not bar the MSJ; plaintiff's argument meritless |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate after discovery | Lathon: genuine issue of material fact exists | Leslie Lakes: no genuine issue; entitled to judgment as matter of law | Held: After assessing burdens under La. C.C.P. art. 966, court granted defendant’s MSJ and denied plaintiff’s MSJ |
Key Cases Cited
- Peironnet v. Matador Res. Co., 144 So. 3d 791 (La. 2013) (summary judgment burden principles)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So. 2d 764 (La. 2004) (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Leisure Recreation & Ent., Inc. v. First Guar. Bank, 339 So. 3d 508 (La. 2022) (apply statute as written when unambiguous)
- State v. Benoit, 817 So. 2d 11 (La. 2002) (plain meaning controls except to avoid results demonstrably at odds with legislative intent)
- Ambrose v. New Orleans Police Dep’t Ambulance Serv., 639 So. 2d 216 (La. 1994) (definition of gross negligence includes willful/wanton/reckless conduct)
- SWAT 24 Shreveport Bossier, Inc. v. Bond, 808 So. 2d 294 (La. 2001) (statutory construction to avoid absurd consequences)
- Land v. Vidrine, 62 So. 3d 36 (La. 2011) (law of the case does not control interlocutory trial court rulings)
- Babineaux v. Pernie-Bailey Drilling Co., 262 So. 2d 328 (La. 1972) (limits law of the case to same-court decisions)
- Hall v. James, 986 So. 2d 817 (La. App. 2008) (res judicata does not apply to non-appealable interlocutory judgments)
- Levine v. First Nat. Bank of Commerce, 948 So. 2d 1051 (La. 2006) (denial of writs is a decision not to decide issues)