Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

William Campbell, a guest at the Windsor Court Hotel in New Orleans, was robbed and injured in the hotel’s courtyard on Christmas Day, 2008. He filed a lawsuit against the hotel and associated entities, alleging negligence and strict liability due to the hotel’s failure to provide adequate security and maintain a safe environment.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Campbell failed to prove the hotel had a legal duty to protect him from the specific criminal act. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding the foreseeability of the incident and the hotel’s duty to protect its guests.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and conducted a de novo review. The court reaffirmed that an innkeeper has a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect guests from criminal acts of third parties. However, it found that the scope of this duty did not encompass the specific harm Campbell suffered. The court noted that there had been no prior criminal activity at the hotel in twenty years, and Campbell’s own actions—approaching an unknown vehicle and displaying a large sum of money—were unforeseeable and contributed to the incident.The Supreme Court of Louisiana vacated the appellate court’s judgment and reinstated the trial court’s judgment, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that while the hotel owed a duty to provide a reasonably safe environment, the scope of this duty did not include the risk of harm Campbell encountered due to his own actions. View "CAMPBELL VS. ORIENT-EXPRESS HOTELS LOUISIANA, INC." on Justia Law

In November 2019, Kathleen Welch was admitted to Tulane Medical Center for acute pancreatitis and diabetic ketoacidosis. After her discharge, she was admitted to BridgePoint Healthcare for rehabilitation, where she developed pressure ulcers. She was later transferred to United Medical Physical Rehabilitation Hospital, where her condition persisted. Welch filed a claim for injuries related to her pressure ulcers, naming BridgePoint and United Medical as defendants. United Medical, not being a qualified healthcare provider under the relevant statute, faced a lawsuit alleging negligence.United Medical filed an exception of no cause of action, citing La. R.S. 29:771(B)(2)(c)(i), which limits liability to gross negligence or willful misconduct during a public health emergency. The trial court granted the exception, applying the gross negligence standard but did not rule on the statute's constitutionality. Welch appealed, and the appellate court upheld the trial court's application of the statute but remanded the case for a ruling on its constitutionality. On remand, the trial court found the statute constitutional, and Welch sought supervisory review.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that La. R.S. 29:771(B)(2)(c)(i) is constitutional, as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in ensuring access to healthcare during a public health emergency. The court found that the statute does not violate the Louisiana Constitution's due process or access to courts provisions and is not a prohibited special law. The statute's application to all healthcare providers equally and its rational basis for limiting liability during emergencies were key factors in the court's decision. View "WELCH VS. UNITED MEDICAL HEALTHWEST-NEW ORLEANS L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of 2021 La. Acts, No. 437, which legalized historical horse racing without requiring voter approval in the affected parishes. Historical horse racing uses an algorithm based on the results of previously run horse races, with bets made at terminals similar to slot machines. Plaintiffs, residents of five parishes where historical horse racing could be conducted, argued that the Act violated Article XII, section 6(C) of the Louisiana Constitution, which requires voter approval for any new form of gaming not specifically authorized before the effective date of the amendment.The 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Act and granted summary judgment in their favor. The court declared historical horse racing a new form of gaming requiring local voter approval and declared Act 437 unconstitutional. The defendants appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that historical horse racing is a new form of gaming not authorized in Louisiana before October 15, 1996, and therefore requires prior voter approval in a local election as mandated by Article XII, section 6(C) of the Louisiana Constitution. The court concluded that Act 437 is unconstitutional for allowing historical horse racing without the required voter approval. View "FREMIN VS. BOYD RACING, LLC" on Justia Law

Christopher Diano was convicted of a felony offense on March 3, 2023, for an act committed on January 24, 2021. The State sought to adjudicate Diano as a habitual offender based on three prior felony convictions from 2009, 2010, and 2013. Diano completed his parole for these offenses on December 25, 2015. Between then and the commission of the current offense, Diano was incarcerated for approximately 180 days for a misdemeanor conviction.Diano filed a motion to quash the habitual offender bill, arguing that more than five years had elapsed between his last felony conviction and the current offense, thus cleansing the predicate offenses under La. R.S. 15:529.1. The State contended that the five-year period had not elapsed because the 180 days of incarceration for the misdemeanor should be excluded from the calculation. The district court granted Diano’s motion, interpreting the statute to mean that the cleansing period is suspended only by incarceration related to the predicate felony offenses. The court of appeal denied the State’s writ application.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court held that the time Diano spent incarcerated for a misdemeanor offense should be included in the calculation of the five-year cleansing period. The court reasoned that the statutory language must be read in conjunction with the entire statute and that the purpose of the Habitual Offender Law is to punish persistent felony offenses, not misdemeanors. The court also found that the State failed to prove that Diano remained under correctional supervision for the third predicate offense beyond December 25, 2015. Thus, the district court correctly granted Diano’s motion to quash the habitual offender bill. View "STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. DIANO" on Justia Law

A subcontractor filed a lawsuit in 2013 against a contractor, the contractor's insurer, and a developer, claiming non-payment for work performed on a subdivision project. The contractor and insurer responded with a reconventional demand and a cross-claim. The subcontractor obtained a default judgment against the developer, which the developer later sought to annul, arguing that a bond it posted extinguished its obligation. Various motions and hearings were scheduled and rescheduled over the years, with significant delays and inactivity.The trial court granted an ex parte motion to dismiss the case for abandonment, as no steps had been taken in the prosecution or defense for over three years. The subcontractor's motion to set aside the dismissal was denied, and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the defendants' actions did not constitute steps in the defense of the case.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case to determine if the lower courts erred in granting the motion to dismiss for abandonment. The court held that the defendants' motion to continue a hearing due to an emergency surgery, which included a request to reset the hearing date, constituted a step in the defense of the case. This action was inconsistent with an intent to treat the case as abandoned and thus waived the right to assert abandonment. The court reversed the lower courts' rulings and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "PINNACLE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C. VS. DEVERE SWEPCO JV, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Huntsman International, LLC, a chemical company, sued Praxair, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging that Praxair failed to supply sufficient hydrogen and carbon monoxide to Huntsman's Geismar, Louisiana plant. This failure allegedly caused Huntsman to lose sales of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and aniline, resulting in lost profits. Huntsman also sought cover damages for the additional costs incurred to purchase industrial gas from another supplier.The case proceeded to a three-week jury trial in the Parish of Orleans Civil Court, where the jury awarded Huntsman $88,117,405 in lost profits and $4,991,473 in cover damages. Praxair's motion for a new trial was denied. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the trial court's judgment, with two judges dissenting in part on the award of lost profits.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and found that the jury abused its discretion by awarding lost profits not established with reasonable certainty. The court noted that the only expert witness, Rebecca Szelc, calculated lost profits to be $37,522,291 using a detailed methodology based on monthly production and sales data. The jury, however, used an alternative method suggested by Huntsman's counsel, which averaged the profit margins of the top-third most profitable transactions, resulting in a higher figure.The Supreme Court held that the jury's method was not supported by the evidence and relied on speculation. Consequently, the court amended the award, reducing the lost profits to $37,522,291, as calculated by Szelc. The judgment was thus amended in part. View "HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C. VS. PRAXAIR, INC." on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in district court for second-degree murder under La. R.S. 14:30.1(A)(3) for providing drugs that led to the poly drug toxicity death of the victim. The incident involved the victim, Brittany Lapeyrouse, who died on September 19, 2018, after consuming various drugs. The defendant and two co-defendants were initially charged with multiple felonies, including negligent homicide. A superseding indictment charged the defendant alone with second-degree murder, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of alprazolam, and illegal carrying of weapons while in possession of controlled dangerous substances. The defendant pleaded not guilty, but a jury found him guilty on all counts.The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, reversed the second-degree murder conviction, citing insufficient evidence. The appellate court noted that while there was evidence the defendant sold methamphetamine to the victim, there was no direct evidence that the victim ingested the methamphetamine sold by the defendant. The court also highlighted that the victim had access to drugs from other sources and was not in the defendant's company for extended periods on the day of her death. The appellate court concluded that the prosecution failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as required by La. R.S. 15:438.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's decision. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the methamphetamine sold by the defendant was the direct cause of the victim's death. The court emphasized that the statute requires proof that the controlled substance distributed by the defendant was the direct cause of death, which was not established in this case. The court also noted that the State's expert could not definitively state that the methamphetamine alone caused the death, as the victim had multiple drugs in her system. View "STATE OF LOUISIANA VS. BARTIE" on Justia Law

Frank Cushenberry and his family sought damages from Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC, for injuries sustained in a vehicular accident on Interstate 10 in LaPlace, Louisiana. The trial court did not instruct the jury on certain duties and obligations, but this was not considered reversible error. The jury found Barber Brothers solely at fault and awarded significant general and loss of consortium damages to the Cushenberry family.The Court of Appeal, First Circuit, reviewed the case and the Louisiana Supreme Court initially reduced the general damages awarded to Mr. Cushenberry from $10,750,000 to $5,000,000, and the loss of consortium awards to his wife and children from $2,500,000 and $1,500,000 each to $400,000 and $100,000 each, respectively. The court also adjusted the fault allocation, assigning 20% fault to Mr. Cushenberry and 80% to Barber Brothers.Upon rehearing, the Louisiana Supreme Court re-examined the general damage and loss of consortium awards, considering the particular facts and circumstances of the case and prior awards in similar cases. The court found that the jury did not abuse its discretion in awarding $10,750,000 in general damages to Mr. Cushenberry, given the extensive physical and psychological injuries he sustained and their impact on his life and family. The court also amended the loss of consortium awards, increasing them to $1,000,000 for Mrs. Cushenberry and $500,000 each for the children, Noah and Khloe.The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court judgment as amended, maintaining the 20% fault allocation to Mr. Cushenberry and 80% to Barber Brothers. The court emphasized the importance of considering the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances, alongside prior awards, in determining whether a general damage award is an abuse of discretion. View "BARBER BROTHERS CONTRACTING COMPANY, LLC VS. CAPITOL CITY PRODUCE COMPANY, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1996, Darrell J. Robinson was convicted of the brutal murders of four individuals, including a ten-month-old child, in Louisiana. The victims were shot in the head, and Robinson was sentenced to death based on the jury's recommendation. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case. In 2005, Robinson filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court in 2020. Robinson then sought review from the Louisiana Supreme Court, which initially set aside his conviction and sentence, citing due process violations due to the State's suppression of evidence and presentation of false testimony.The Louisiana Supreme Court granted a rehearing to reexamine its decision. Upon further review, the court found no merit in Robinson's claims of Brady violations, which alleged the State withheld favorable evidence, including deals with a jailhouse informant, forensic records, and eyewitness information. The court determined that the evidence was either not material or not favorable to Robinson's defense. The court also found no evidence of a pre-trial deal with the informant and concluded that the cumulative effect of the alleged Brady violations did not undermine confidence in the verdict.The court also addressed Robinson's claims of Napue violations, which alleged the State allowed false testimony. The court found no evidence that the testimony in question was false or that the State knew it was false. Additionally, the court rejected Robinson's claim of actual innocence, finding that the new evidence presented did not meet the high standard required to overturn the conviction.Ultimately, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated its previous decision, reinstated Robinson's conviction and death sentence, and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Robinson's post-conviction relief application. View "State ex rel. Robinson v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

In 2008, John Wallace Frabbiele executed a three-page document as his last will and testament, bequeathing his estate to his third wife, Barbara Ann Nash Frabbiele, and his son Anthony. The will was signed before two witnesses and a notary public. John died in 2021, and Barbara filed the will for probate. John’s seven adult children opposed the probate, arguing the will was invalid because John only initialed the first two pages and signed his name on the last page.The 40th Judicial District Court found the will valid, ruling that John’s initials on the first two pages substantially complied with the requirements of La. C.C. art. 1577(1). The appellate court denied a writ application, agreeing with the trial court’s decision.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case to determine if the initials satisfied the mandatory signature requirements of Article 1577(1). The court held that the testator’s initials on the first two pages did not meet the requirement to “sign his name” on each page. The court emphasized that the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, requiring a full signature on each page to prevent fraud. The court reversed the lower courts’ decisions, declaring the will invalid due to noncompliance with the mandatory formalities of Article 1577(1). View "Succession of Frabbiele" on Justia Law