Employer Finds Safe Harbor for Mailing Benefits Timely

On July 27, 2023, the Louisiana First Circuit entered judgment in favor of Louisiana State Trooper Andre Bezou in the shooting death of Coltin LeBlanc. The case was defended by Keogh Cox attorneys Drew Blanchfield, Brian Butler, and Collin LeBlanc. In support of its ruling, the First Circuit cited La. R.S. 9:2798.1 which provides qualified immunity for an officer’s actions, unless their action constituted “criminal, fraudulent, malicious, intentional, willful, outrageous, reckless, or flagrant misconduct.” The court found Trooper Bezou was entitled to qualified immunity under the facts of this case.

After midnight in an area of Hammond, La. dotted with bars and restaurants, Trooper Bezou spotted LeBlanc driving a large Ford truck. Trooper Bezou testified that he witnessed two traffic violations and initiated a stop. “Bodycam” footage captured the interaction. LeBlanc exited the vehicle, and when the trooper asked for identification, LeBlanc indicated it was in his truck. LeBlanc moved to the cab of the truck, and Trooper Bezou followed, stopping within the open driver’s side door. Based upon his observations during this interaction, Trooper Bezou suspected LeBlanc was intoxicated. Later testing confirmed that LeBlanc had a blood alcohol level more than two times the legal limit.

But LeBlanc was not attempting to retrieve his license. Instead, he revved the engine and attempted to flee with Trooper Bezou immediately next to the vehicle. Trooper Bezou later testified he feared that LeBlanc would steer the vehicle to run him over with the back left wheel. In reaction, Trooper Bezou latched onto the truck and LeBlanc sped around a corner and down the roadway. Trooper Bezou was able to draw his weapon and gave multiple orders to stop. Trooper Bezou testified that he feared he would be thrown from the vehicle or scraped against parked cars in the area. When the trooper received no indication LeBlanc would relent, he opened fire. Thereafter, the truck came to a rest.

In the subsequent litigation, plaintiffs argued that Trooper Bezou used “excessive force” and should have attempted to move away and allow LeBlanc to flee the scene. In response, Keogh Cox cited Harmon v. City of Arlington, 16 F.4^th 1159 (5^th Cir. 2021), where the federal Fifth Circuit held that no “clearly established precedent” would prohibit an officer from firing while perched on the running board of a fleeing vehicle. Finding no excessive force under the facts of the case, Harmon acknowledged the simple truth that “there is an obvious threat of harm to an officer” who is “on the side of a fleeing vehicle.” The facts presented to the First Circuit showed that Trooper Bezou gave more warning to relent than was given in Harmon.

The New York Times covered this incident in an article titled, “Before the Final Frame: When Police Missteps Create Danger.” 11/17/21. In its coverage, the New York Times reported that Trooper Bezou “appeared to be in grave danger.” It then suggested that the trooper could have just backed away. However, courts are instructed not a gauge questions of immunity from an out-of-context application of “20/20 hindsight.” Because the facts in this case showed Trooper Bezou was in grave danger “at the moment” force was used and was faced with a split-second decision, he was protected from liability.

A recent decision from the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal re-affirms the merchant liability rules. In Carolyn R. Miller and Steven Rathjen v. Willis Communications, et. al., 19-787 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/24/20), the plaintiff was an elderly patron of an AT&T store. Plaintiff and her daughter were assisted at the customer service desk, and plaintiff took a seat in a rolling chair. When she attempted to stand up, the rolling chair moved, and she fell to the floor breaking a hip.

Plaintiff filed suit under the merchant’s liability statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Per the statute, if a negligence claim is brought against a merchant by a person lawfully on the merchant’s premises for injuries sustained because of a fall, then plaintiff must prove: 1) that the condition of the merchant’s premises presented an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable; 2) that the merchant created the risk or had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition; and 3) that the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care to address the unreasonable risk of harm. Plaintiff argued that an unreasonable risk of harm was created when she was given a chair on rollers on flooring allegedly unsafe for use with a rolling chair.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. The appellate court reversed and entered summary judgment. The appellate court found that the critical element of plaintiff’s burden of proof was missing – any defect in the rolling chair. Plaintiff admitted that the chair was not defective. Instead, she argued that she should not have been given a rolling chair to sit in because of her age, obvious mobility issues, and because the rolling chair was unsafe on the flooring of the store.

Evidence was presented that: 1) plaintiff’s daughter was able to maneuver the rolling chair without incident; 2) the daughter did not believe that plaintiff would have trouble navigating the rolling chair; and 3) no other customer had ever fallen out of one of the rolling chairs. Simply, what occurred at the AT&T store was an accident, for which AT&T and its employees were not responsible. Plaintiff, well aware of her own physical limitations, chose to sit in a rolling chair that she physically was unable to get out of on her own. Based upon this evidence, the court reasoned that plaintiff did not prove that: 1) the rolling chair posed an unreasonable risk of harm; or 2) the merchant possessed actual or constructive knowledge of any defect.

Following decisions which imposed harsh standards upon retailers, the Louisiana Legislature adopted the merchant’s liability statute to limit recovery to cases involving true negligence. The Carolyn R. Miller decision demonstrates that the statute is properly used in motion practice to resolve cases where the merchant lacks advance knowledge of the claimed unreasonable risk. Sometimes, an accident is just an accident.

Virginia “Jenny” McLin is a partner at Keogh Cox who practices in the fields of corporate litigation, insurance defense and workers compensation defense. When she is not practicing law, Jenny can be found volunteering with the Junior League of Baton Rouge; cheering for the LSU Tigers with her husband Ryan; or shuffling her two kids to and from dance practice.

In a previous blog, we outlined developing law in the Louisiana appeals courts, and federal district courts in Louisiana on the issue of whether a claimant may maintain a separate cause of action against an employer for independent negligence when it is stipulated that the employee was in the course and scope of employment.¹ Most courts held a claimant could not maintain a separate action against the employer under these circumstances, reasoning that the employee’s fault would impute to the employer, and therefore, additional inquiry was not appropriate. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently addressed the issue and stated:

“(A) plaintiff may pursue both a negligence cause of action against an employee for which the employer is vicariously liable and a direct claim against the employer for its own negligence in hiring, supervision, training, and retention as well as a negligent entrustment claim, when the employer stipulates that the employee was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the injury.” (Emphasis added) See Martin v. Thomas et al., 21-1490 (La. 12/21/21), 328 So. 3d 1164.

This holding notably overturned the 1^st Circuit Court of Appeal ruling in Elee v. White, - - So.3d - - (La. App. 1 Cir 7/24/20), 2020 WL 4251974 and other Louisiana 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions. The Supreme Court in Martin reasoned that “the initial assessment of fault required by the law is not bypassed due to the employer-employee relationship” and “shielding a potential tortfeasor from liability is not compatible with a comparative negligence regime.” The Court further stated that the possibility that both the employee and employer may be at fault is not “subsumed” by the employer’s admission on course and scope. In fact, if the fault of the employee is shown, then the issue of whether there is also fault on the part of the employer remains and must be decided by the evidence on a case-by-case basis.

The consequences of this decision remain to be seen, but it is expected that claimants may also pursue employers separately on theories such as negligent hiring, supervision, and entrustment. The scope of such discovery will remain within the sound discretion of the trial judge.

By: John P. Wolff, III and Richard W. Wolff

¹Louisiana Appeal Courts Prohibit Direct Negligence Claims Against Employer; US District Court Uses Rule to Limit Discovery - Keogh Cox