111 So. 3d 1069
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Walkers sued LeBlancs and Farmers for injuries Mr. Walker suffered while feeding the LeBlancs’ livestock on the LeBlancs’ property.
- Walker was an informal caretaker/driver, paid cash, and not a traditional employee; his duties included feeding livestock during weekly pasture visits.
- Injury occurred September 5, 2007, when a White-Faced Hereford bull rammed and pinned Walker as he reached for feed.
- LeBlancs and Farmers moved for summary judgment under La. Civ. Code art. 2321, asserting no knowledge of a dangerous propensity or failure to prevent injury.
- District court granted summary judgment for LeBlancs/Farmers, dismissing Walkers’ claims with prejudice, and the Walkers appealed.
- The appellate court held subject matter jurisdiction existed and affirmed the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment without a hearing | Walkers: hearing required under Art. 966(D) | LeBlancs/Farmers: no hearing needed; record submitted via memoranda | No abuse; no hearing required under the rules |
| Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact on knowledge of dangerous propensity | Walkers: evidence showed potential dangerous propensity and notice | LeBlancs/Farmers: no prior dangerous propensity shown for this bull | No genuine issue; Walker failed to prove knowledge/propensity to be dangerous under article 2321 |
| Whether Walker falls within workers’ compensation or other exclusive remedy limits | Walkers: could be workers’ compensation or domestic servant; exclusive remedy applies | LeBlancs/Farmers: caretakers are not covered by workers’ comp; domestic servant exception applies | Subject matter jurisdiction proper; not barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity |
| Whether evidence supports a duty to warn or take precautions based on general propensity of animal class | Walkers: general propensity of bulls could cause injury; owner should take precautions | LeBlancs/Farmers: evidence shows no dangerous propensity of breed; incident was exceptional | No evidence of concealed dangerous propensity; district court’s grant affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Guidry v. Orgeron, 525 So.2d 677 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1988) (domestic servants not covered by workers’ compensation)
- Gunter v. Woodson, 759 So.2d 223 (La.App. 3d Cir. 2000) (caregivers not within workers’ compensation; domestic service)
- Blache v. Maryland Casualty Co., 283 So.2d 319 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973) (animal injury negligence; owner liable for dangerous propensity)
- Connor v. Frees Const. Co., Inc., 525 So.2d 241 (La.App. 1st Cir.) (test for employee eligibility for workers’ comp involves regular business activity)
- Granger v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 266 So.2d 526 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1972) (owners must take reasonable care for reasonably anticipated animal injuries)
- McGehee v. City/Parish of East Baton Rouge, 809 So.2d 258 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2001) (sua sponte jurisdiction still required; subject matter jurisdiction review)