261 So. 3d 1079
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- December 18, 2014: Members of the Street Level Interdiction Unit (SLIU), a joint Caddo Parish Sheriff–Shreveport Police narcotics unit, attempted to arrest Damien Pea using his girlfriend Pipkins to deliver him to a Circle K; Pipkins exited the car but left the keys in the vehicle.
- Deputy Earlton Parker (the only sheriff deputy present) rode as a passenger with SPD Officer Ryan Holley; when Pea got into the car and fled, a high‑speed pursuit ensued led by SPD vehicles and later by Holley/Parker’s unit.
- The chase lasted over 11 minutes, in wet nighttime conditions, reached speeds over 90 mph, and ended when Pea’s car collided head‑on with a civilian vehicle occupied by Obie and Linda Weaver, who later died.
- Plaintiffs (the Weavers’ children) sued multiple defendants including Sheriff Steve Prator and Deputy Parker alleging negligence and vicarious/solidary liability for the pursuit and deaths.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Sheriff Prator and Deputy Parker, finding no genuine issue that Parker was not at fault; plaintiffs appealed that grant (denial of plaintiffs’ cross‑motion was interlocutory and not reviewed).
- The appellate court reviewed the record de novo, found disputed facts about Parker’s participation and SLIU’s joint operation, and reversed the grant of summary judgment as to Sheriff and Parker, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deputy Parker was negligent in planning/executing the arrest or pursuit | Parker participated in SLIU operation and had duties to ensure safe planning/execution; factual disputes exist | Parker’s role was minimal: he did not plan the operation and merely exited/returned to vehicle; no negligence | Reversed: genuine issues of material fact exist as to Parker’s negligence; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Sheriff Prator is vicariously liable for Parker’s conduct | Sheriff is vicariously liable for Deputy Parker’s alleged negligence in SLIU operation | No vicarious liability absent negligence by Parker; Parker had no significant role | Reversed: vicarious liability cannot be resolved on record; material factual disputes remain |
| Whether SLIU operation was a joint operation/joint venture creating solidary liability between City and Sheriff | The arrest/pursuit was a joint operation of City and Sheriff, entitling plaintiffs to solidary liability | Defendants contest the existence/scope of any joint operation for this arrest | Not decided on appeal: plaintiffs’ cross‑motion denial is interlocutory and not reviewable here; trial court may later consider joint operation evidence |
| Whether appellate court should consider the conduct of all SLIU members | Plaintiffs say actions of all participating SLIU officers are relevant to liability | Defendants argued limitation to Parker’s isolated conduct | Appellate court allowed consideration of all SLIU participants’ actions as relevant given disputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of New York Mellon v. Smith, 180 So.3d 1238 (La. 2015) (standards for de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Tramuta v. Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C., 168 So.3d 775 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2015) (summary judgment review principles)
- Gutierrez v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 128 So.3d 509 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2013) (summary judgment review principles)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (viewing inferences in favor of non‑movant on de novo review)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (purpose of summary judgment)
- Driver Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Cadeville Gas Storage, LLC, 150 So.3d 492 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standard)
- Stroik v. Ponseti, 699 So.2d 1072 (La. 1997) (duty‑risk negligence analysis)