Louisiana Second Circuit Applies Anti-Dram Shop Statute to Grant Summary Judgment

Louisiana’s “anti-dram shop” statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.1, limits the ability of a claimant to hold a provider of alcohol liable for damages resulting from the acts of an intoxicated patron. Subsection A of the statute declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the sale, serving, or providing of those beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury or property damage that the consumer may cause. Under Subsection B, anyone who lawfully serves alcohol to a person of legal age is provided immunity for any injury caused by the consumer that occurs “off the premises.” This immunity extends to sellers of alcohol and social hosts.

The Louisiana Second Circuit recently examined these provisions of this statute in Rugg v. Horseshoe Entertainment, et. al. The plaintiff alleged she was injured when an intoxicated patron (John Doe) fell onto her at a hotel bar. She alleged that the defendant, which operated a casino bar, was liable because it ignored multiple complaints about John Doe’s drunken state prior to the incident and failed to escort him out.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Louisiana’s anti-dram shop statute prevented any finding of liability on its part. In opposing the summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that the statute did not rule out liability because the injury occurred on the premises.

The Second Circuit determined that the immunity afforded in Subsection B of the statute was not available because, as the plaintiff argued, the injury occurred on the premises. However, Subsection A of the statute, which declares the consumption, not the serving, of alcohol is the proximate cause of injury inflicted by an intoxicated person, still applied.

Under these circumstances, the Court held it had to determine whether the bar owner violated general negligence principles. In conducting this analysis, the court was required to focus on two issues: 1) whether the alcohol provider acted reasonably under the circumstances, and 2) whether the alcohol provider took any “affirmative acts” that increased the chances of the incident.

The Court of Appeal granted summary judgment under the facts of the case. The court found no evidence in the record that Horseshoe acted unreasonably leading up to the incident. Testimony indicated that the complaints about John Doe’s behavior arose after the incident occurred, not before. Similarly, the court reasoned that the failure to escort John Doe out of the bar was not an “affirmative act” that increased the risk of the incident because the record did not indicate Horseshoe had any reason to do so prior to the injury.

In conclusion, the court noted “that in no case will the serving of alcohol be held as the proximate cause of a tort in which alcohol was involved.” Therefore, the plaintiff had to show Horseshoe did something more to cause her injury than just serve John Doe alcohol. Because the plaintiff failed to do so, summary judgment was granted. Under these facts, Louisiana’s dram shop statute still applied to protect the defendant provider of alcohol, even though the injury occurred on its premises and the statutory immunity was not available.

References:

La. R.S. 9:2800.1

Mechelle Rugg v. Horseshoe Entertainment, et al., 55,239 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/10/24), 2024 WL 104143.

Louisiana premises liability law continues to evolve in the wake of the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Broussard v. State, 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013). The Broussard decision was believed to limit the application of the open and obvious defense in the context of a Motion for Summary Judgment on liability.On February 18, 2014, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided Gustafson v. Priority Electric, Inc., et al, 2013 CA 1096, 2014 WL 647704 (2/18/14) (not designated for publication), providing additional insight as to how Broussard will affect the applicability of the open and obvious defense. Based on Gustafson, the open and obvious defense may still be alive in the context of a Motion for Summary Judgment.While the Gustafson's home was under construction, Ms. Gustafson entered the home unescorted. She stood facing a newly repainted wall and took several steps backward to broaden her perspective of the wall. As she walked backwards, she tripped on one of two unfinished PVC conduit "stub-outs" containing electrical wire that would ultimately service floor-mounted outlets in an adjoining den. The lawsuit ensued.Priority Electric filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the stub-out presented an open and obvious condition that was readily discoverable had plaintiff exercised reasonable care. The company further argued that it had no duty to warn. The Trial Court agreed that the stub-out was an open and obvious condition and granted the motion.The Appellate Court conducted a de novo. The defendants argued, and the Trial Court agreed, that "if a defect is obvious and apparent, then there is no correlative duty to warn of its existence." Citing Broussard, the Appellate Court found that statement to be a misstatement of the law, noting that Broussard's analytic framework for evaluating an unreasonable risk of harm is classified as a determination of whether a defendant breached a duty owed, rather than a determination of whether a duty is owed ab initio.In light of Broussard, the Trial Court's reasoning underlying the grant of summary judgment was flawed. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court found a basis to support the Trial Court's dismissal of the claims utilizing a "risk-utility" analysis considering multiple factors.

1. Utility of the Stub-Outs

The necessity and utility of the stub-outs was not disputed.

2. Likelihood and Magnitude of Harm

The decision turned on this element. The utility of the stub-outs must be weighed against the likelihood and magnitude of harm presented by their defective condition, including whether the defect was open and obvious. The plaintiffs did not make a showing that any of the numerous contractors, subcontractors or visitors to the premises ever tripped. They also failed to offer expert testimony to show that the stub-outs presented an unreasonable risk of harm. Instead, they relied solely on the testimony of Ms. Gustafson, who admitted she was walking backwards and not paying attention. Unlike in Broussard, there was no evidence that the stub-outs were not "open and obvious to all who encountered them..."3. Cost of Preventing the HarmNo expert testimony was presented to show that the use of PVC stub-outs was unconventional in a new home or that there were reasonable alternatives to their use. No evidence was presented to show how the stub-outs could have been better placed or made more visible.　 Although plaintiffs argued that warning cones should have been in place, no evidence was presented to show that the contrast of the blue pipes on the gray cement was insufficient to alert an unsuspecting person.4. Nature of Plaintiff's ActivityPlaintiff was walking backwards when she fell. She acted unreasonably. The home was under construction and could have encountered a number of hazards. She failed to offer countervailing evidence on this issue.Upon balancing all of the factors above, all evidence showed that the accident would not have occurred "but for" Ms. Gustafson's own inattention and negligence.

A Louisiana man logged onto eBay. To save some money, hebought a used racing bicycle. While riding this bike through his neighborhood,he noticed an unlevel section of the roadway and attempted a “bunny hop” overthe gap in the pavement. The front wheel disconnected when he landed. Thecyclist lost control and flipped over the handlebars, sustaining seriousinjuries. He later filed suit against Specialized, the manufacturer of thebicycle, under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”). See Delahoussaye v. Boelter, --- So.3d---,2019-0026 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/15/19).

The evidence in Delahoussaye showed that the bike wasmissing its “secondary retention device,” which keeps the wheel fromdisengaging if the “quick release” on clamp on the front fork is not engagedproperly. Also, no warnings were found on the bike. Based upon this evidence,the cyclist claimed Specialized should be liable because the bike wasdefective; unreasonably dangerous in its design, construction, and manufacture;and inadequate in its instructions and warnings.

To recover from a manufacturer under the LPLA, a plaintiffmust show that the product (here, the bike) was unreasonably dangerous atthe time it left the manufacturer’s control. Photographs of the bike showeda light, silver spot on the bike where the secondary retention device had beenlocated. This confirmed that the secondary retention device was removed afterit originally was manufactured. Evidence also showed that warning stickersoriginally on the bike had been removed.

These changes were made after Specialized lost control of the bike. Because the bike was not defective when the product left Specialized’s control, Specialized, as the bike’s manufacturer, could not be liable under the LPLA for injuries the plaintiff sustained when he lost control of the bike. In short, this case came down to a matter of control.

Reynolds LeBlanc is a partner at Keogh Cox. His practice areas include commercial litigation, personal injury claims, appeals, and other matters. Reynolds is a former teacher, who in his free time plays music and perpetually talks himself into training for his next marathon.