Louisiana Supreme Court Provides Guidance on “Going and Coming” Rule

Historically, Louisiana law provided that a professional rescuer injured in the performance of his or her duties “assumes the risk” of an injury and is not entitled to damages. See Worley v. Winston, 550 So.2d 694, 696 (La. App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 551 So.2d 1342 (La. 1989). This is known as the Professional Rescuer’s Doctrine and applied as a defense to claims raised by firefighters, policeman, and others. The doctrine prevented recovery because the professional rescuer “assumed the risk” of injury. Recently, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Doe v. McKesson, 2021-00929 (La. 3/25/22) rejected the doctrine as a bar to suit by the professional rescuer.

In Doe, the Supreme Court of Louisiana accepted a certified question from the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals as to the viability of the doctrine. In response, the Supreme Court held that the Professional Rescuer’s Doctrine has been abrogated in Louisiana both legislatively under La. C.C. art. 2323 and jurisprudentially in Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 521 So.2d 1123, 1132 (La. 1988).

The Court cited La. C.C. art. 2323(A), which provides that the fault of “all persons […] shall be determined” in a civil action. Subsection (B) of the article provides this rule applies “to any claim for recovery of damages for injury, death, or loss asserted under any law or legal doctrine or theory of liability, regardless of the basis of liability.”

In Murray, the Supreme Court previously held that the doctrine of assumption of risk no longer had a place in Louisiana tort law following the adoption of comparative fault. Nevertheless, the Murray Court identified two exceptions:

• Cases “where the plaintiff, by oral or written agreement, expressly waives or releases a future right to recover damages from the defendant,” if “no public policy concerns would invalidate such a waiver, the plaintiff's right to recover damages may be barred on a release theory;” and

• “[I]n the sports spectator or amusement park cases (common law’s “implied primary” assumption of risk cases).”

Murray, 521 So.2d at 1134. (internal citations omitted).

The Doe court observed that Murray provided no exception relative to professional rescuers. The Court further observed that, while the legislature had enacted statutes that bar plaintiff recovery in other settings, no such statute had been passed to codify the Professional Rescuer’s Doctrine.

Although professional rescuers injured in the performance of their duties may still be found at fault, the is no longer an automatic bar to suit.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that the workers' compensation tort immunity provided by LSA-R.S. 23:1032 does not apply to suits by one volunteer fireman against another volunteer. See Champagne v. American Alternative Insurance Corp., 12-1697 (La. 3/19/13), -- So.3d ---. LSA-R.S. 23:1036 provides that workers' compensation is the sole and exclusive remedy provided to a volunteer fireman against a fire company. Champagne clarified that this immunity does not similarly apply to claims for personal injury brought by one volunteer fireman against another.

The last sentence of LSA- R.S. 23:1036(A) states as follows:

The remedies provided herein shall constitute the exclusive remedy of the volunteer member against the fire company as provided in R.S. 23:1032.

In Champagne, the attorney for the defendants argued that the legislature's incorporation of LSA-R.S. 23:1032 reflected the intent to extend immunity beyond the language provided by LSA-R.S. 23:1036(A). The defendants asserted that this last sentence has internal inconsistencies; the first portion of the sentence "standing in isolation, can be read to limit workers' compensation immunity solely to the fire company, whereas its last phrase specifically incorporates La. R.S. 23:1032, which applies workers' compensation tort immunity to officers and employees of the employer or principal." Defendants further argued that, "to not include co-volunteers as co-employees under La. R.S. 23:1032 is to render the phrase, 'as provided in La. R.S. 23:1032,' superfluous and meaningless."

The Supreme Court disagreed with the defendants' statutory interpretation arguments. The Court stated: "[t]he fundamental question in all cases of statutory construction is legislative intent and the reasons that prompted the legislature to enact the law." In assessing the legislative intent, the Court gave a "narrow construction" of the statute because the statute sought to provide immunity in derogation of "the delictual rights of injured workers existing in the Louisiana Civil Code." Under this narrow construction, "every presumption should be on the side of preserving the general tort or delictual rights of an injured worker..."

Utilizing a narrow (or "strict") construction of LSA-R.S. 23:1036, the Court found that the legislature did not expressly provide immunity to volunteer firemen. Further, the Court did not find intent to provide such immunity in the legislative history.

Champagne is not the first time a Louisiana court has commented on the application of Louisiana's Workers' Compensation Law to volunteer firemen. In 1994, the First Circuit held that a volunteer fireman was not an "employee" of the fire district and therefore was not eligible for workers' compensation benefits. See Genusa v. Pointe Coupee Volunteer Fire Dist. No. 4, 93-2214 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/7/94); 644 So.2d 851. The Genusa Court reasoned that workers' compensation did not apply when there was no employer-employee relationship, and that an employer-employee relationship does not exist without compensation.

The Champagne Court expressed its belief that LSA-R.S. 23:1036 was likely enacted in response to Genusa. However, the statute only granted volunteer members of fire companies "some workers' compensation benefits" and did not change "the law to define a volunteer member... as an 'employee' of the fire company for the purposes of immunity under the workers' compensation law." Emphasis added.

Both the Supreme Court and the appellate court in Champagne observed that a denial of immunity to volunteer firemen "may make members of the community reluctant to act as volunteers at their local department." However, the legislature did not clearly provide for such immunity according to Champagne. It would not be surprising to see the Louisiana legislature address the issue of immunity for volunteer firemen moving forward.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that St. Tammany Parish must pay for hurricane clean-up services even though it had no formal contract with the party that did the work. See USA Disaster Discovery, Inc. v. St. Tammany Parish Government, 2013-0656, -- So.3d ---.

Fallen trees and loose debris were familiar sights across Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Immediately after the storm, emergency protocols were followed to rescue those trapped in their homes or in other buildings. To perform search and rescue, trees and debris had to be cleared. This duty fell to the Sheriff's office under St. Tammany's emergency operation plan. However, neither the Parish nor the Sheriff's office had the necessary resources. Therefore, the Parish contracted with various entities to help clear the debris.

Two individuals, acting as a joint venture, approached a representative of the Sheriff's office and volunteered to assist in the removal of the debris. Although these individuals did not have a contract with the Parish, they were "confident" the Parish would pay them for their services. As such, they went to work with no assurance of payment. The confident volunteers later sent bills to the Parish and the Sheriff's office, but both refused to pay.

The joint venture incorporated itself as USA Disaster Recovery, Inc. ("USA") and sued the Parish and Sheriff to collect the unpaid bills. The trial court found that USA provided the Parish with valuable services following the storm. Under a theory of "unjust enrichment," it held that the Parish had to pay for the work.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling reaffirmed the five elements necessary to show that one party was "unjustly enriched" through the action of another, namely:

1) an "enrichment" of one party;

2) an "impoverishment" of the other;

3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment;

4) no justification or cause for the enrichment and the impoverishment; and,

5) no other legal remedy available to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the appellate court examined the facts and held that unjust enrichment was not available because USA did not factually demonstrate criteria #2, #4 and #5. In short, the appellate court found that USA did the work at its own risk, knowing that payment was not guaranteed. Therefore, its "impoverishment" was not established.

The Supreme Court disagreed and reinstated the trial verdict. An appellate court is to review a trial court's factual findings under a "manifest error" standard. In USA Disaster, the Supreme Court held that the appellate court incorrectly substituted its own factual findings for those of the trial court. As a result of the deference to be given to a trial court's findings of fact, the "volunteers" in USA Disaster were rescued by an uneasy application of the unjust enrichment doctrine.