Insight

Sudden Emergency Defense: Now More Dispositive

Published on: September 1, 2015

On August 28, 2015, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied a Writ Application in Leandro Carias v. Vernon A. Loren, et al. This denial signifies that the "sudden emergency" defense may be properly applied at the summary judgment level. The defense in the Carias litigation was handled by Keogh Cox attorneys Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc.

In Carias, the defendant operated his 18-wheeler traveling eastbound over the Mississippi River Bridge when, according to his testimony, a "phantom driver" abruptly entered into his lane of travel and forcefully applied their brakes. In the sliver of time allowed, the defendant sought to quickly determine if he could safely move from his lane of travel. Incorrectly, he believed that there was sufficient space in the lane to his right and impacted a truck in that lane. In turn, that vehicle rear-ended the plaintiff.

A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed and won based upon the sudden emergency defense, which provides that one is not negligent when they fail to take reasonable measures to avoid an accident when they were presented with: 1) a sudden emergency; 2) which was not of their making; and, 3) which did not allow sufficient time for deliberation. In opposition to the Motion, the plaintiff cited testimony that the defendant was "following too closely," and contended that the defendant was therefore at fault and unable to seek the protections of the defense. In response, it was argued that whether the defendant driver allowed sufficient space between his vehicle and the vehicle to the front was non-material when it was the actions of the phantom driver which exclusively created the sudden emergency.

Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Louisiana First Circuit. Prior to Carias, the Louisiana First Circuit had questioned whether the sudden emergency defense could ever be used at the dispositive motion stage. On this subject, the Louisiana First Circuit stated as follows in Manno v. Gutierrez, 05-0476 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/29/06); 934 So. 2d 112, 117-118: "while we cannot say that it would never be possible to apply the doctrine on a motion for summary judgment, our research has disclosed no cases from this court that have so applied it, and by the nature of the sudden emergency doctrine, it would seem rarely appropriate on a motion for summary judgment." Nevertheless, the First Circuit upheld the Carias summary judgment finding that, unlike earlier cases, there was no conflicting testimony regarding the defendant's lack of opportunity to assess the situation or take other evasive actions.

In the Writ Application to the Supreme Court, the plaintiff cited to a "split in the Circuits" concerning whether the sudden emergency defense may be used at the summary judgment stage.　 In response, it was argued that the decades of jurisprudence following the Louisiana Supreme Court’s establishment of the sudden emergency defense in Hickman v. Southern Pacific Trans. Co., 262 La. 102, 113-114, 262 So.2d 385, 389 (1972) demonstrate that the lower courts have not struggled with this doctrine and that nothing in Hickman nor the Summary Judgment Article prevent a consideration of the sudden emergency defense through motion practice.

As a practical matter, summary judgment may still be difficult to obtain in the context of the sudden emergency defense because of the highly factual context into which the defense is often sought for application. Nevertheless, after Carias, it appears likely that there is no legal prohibition to the use of the doctrine in support of a dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment

Written by:

Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc

Posted by:

Disclaimer

Keogh Cox & Wilson, Ltd. provides this blog as a public service for general information only. The materials contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments or even express the opinion of all or even most of Keogh Cox attorneys. Such material does not constitute legal advice or form any attorney-client relationship. Keogh Cox and all contributing author(s) expressly disclaim all liability to any person with respect to the contents of this Web site and Blog and expect that no reliance will be made upon the information provided.

Continue Reading

Explore legal perspectives on the issues shaping Louisiana's key industries and courtrooms.

Insight

Did I pass? - A Terrifying Question Gets More Terrifying

The July 2013 Louisiana Bar Examination results are set to be announced on October 11, 2013. Until then, applicants have but a few remaining hours to ponder whether the recent changes to the bar examination will have the same negative effect on passage rates as they did last year.

On October 19, 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court ordered the implementation of the first changes to the grading standards of the Louisiana Bar exam since the exam was instituted. These changes: began "compensatory scoring;" eliminated essay portions of the test; included "multiple choice" format portions; doubled the score value of the "Code subjects;" ended the "conditional failure" status; and, placed a five-time limit on unsuccessful attempts to pass. Under the new rules, an applicant must score a 650 or higher or will be required to retake the nine (9) section, week-long test encompassing over twenty one (21) hours of testing.

These changes did not go unopposed. The LSU Paul Hebert Law Center submitted a position paper to the Louisiana Supreme Court arguing against compensatory scoring. In support of its position, LSU cited the analysis of the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions which indicated that a sizable number of applicants could pass the bar under compensatory scoring, even though they failed two or more of the Code subjects.

Prior to implementation of the new rules, many feared that the changes would cause an artificial increase in the number of applicants who passed the bar. However, the exact opposite has occurred. The first examination under the new method was administered during July, 2012. The overall applicant passage rate was 61.32%, an 11.08% drop in the passage rate. The February 2013 examination demonstrated a similar decline. The February 2013 examination passage rate was 40.65%, a 12.95% drop from February 2012.

At this time, it is unknown whether the decline in the overall passage rate will become the "new norm." It has been suggested that passage rates will return to historical levels over time. Until then, applicants will continue to ponder, and the attorneys at Keogh Cox will continue to wish them luck.

Insight

Case on a Wire - Last Minute Fax Filing

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that a request for service of process made by facsimile filing within ninety days from the filing of the petition, but not perfected until after the ninety days has passed, is a timely request for service of process under LSA-C.C.P. art. 1201. See Brenda Morales and Jerson Rodriguez v. State of Louisiana Through the Board of Supervisors of LSU Through Earl K. Long Medical Center, 12-2301 (La. 1/11/13), --So.3d---.

In reaching its decision, the Morales court addressed whether Louisiana's Facsimile Filing Statute, LSA- R.S. 13:850, required both the payment of fees and the receipt of the original request for service before service is considered to have been requested. Under Louisiana procedure, the petitioner has 90 days to request service upon all defendants. See LSA-C.C.P. art. 1201. When service is not timely requested, the case can be involuntarily dismissed without prejudice on the motion of another party. See LSA-C.C.P. art. 1672(C). This dismissal can result in a later bar to the claim if the re-filed suit is then prescribed and the defendants can show bad faith in the failure to request service or the suit involves a claim against the state or a political subdivision of the state.

In Morales, the Louisiana First Circuit had found that the request for service was not timely because the fax filing fees were not paid by the attorney until after the ninetieth day. The First Circuit relied on the Louisiana Supreme Court's previous ruling in Trachant v. State of Louisiana, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 08-0978 (La. 1/21/09), 5 So.3d 832 which stated that "[a] valid request for service under La. R.S. 13:6107(D)(1) is made when the clerk receives the request for service and can then act on it." The First Circuit reasoned that a clerk cannot act upon a request for service when there is no original request and the corresponding fees had not been paid. However, Trachant did not involve fax filing and instead considered whether a request for service is effective when it is placed in the mailbox or when it is received by the clerk. This is sometimes referred to as the "mailbox rule." The Trachant court held that actual receipt of the request was required.

The Louisiana Supreme Court in Morales disagreed with the First Circuit and found that the clerk can "act upon" receipt of the facsimile filing. The Court emphasized that LSA- R.S. 13:850(A) provides that a facsimile filing "shall be deemed complete at the time that the facsimile transmission is received and a receipt of transmission has been transmitted to the sender by the clerk of court." The Morales Court harmonized its ruling with Trachant by finding that the Court has always held that the receipt of the request must occur within the 90 day period.

Even after Morales, a request for service of process should be followed by the prompt mailing of the original signed document and the required transmission fee. However, Morales indicates that Louisiana's highest court is likely to give consideration to preserving a claim when interpreting the otherwise strict requirements of Louisiana's Facsimile Filing Statute.

Insight

Third-Party Criminal activity: Is Summary Judgment Available in a Premises Liability case?

The liability of a premises owner for third-party criminal acts has been the subject of many decisions issued by the Louisiana Supreme Court. But recently, the Court clarified how to analyze this issue in the context of summary judgment. In Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc. (Windsor Court), the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and held that Windsor Court was not liable for a robbery that occurred in its courtyard.

The factual background is simple: Campbell was a frequent guest at the Windsor Court. He decided to approach a vehicle near the entrance to the courtyard when he pulled a “substantial amount of cash” to show the female occupants in the vehicle. He placed the money back in his pocket and talked with them for one minute and forty-six seconds. When he pulled the cash from his pocket a second time, one of the occupants grabbed the cash and the vehicle sped away dragging him with it. Campbell then sued the Windsor Court alleging negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, failure to ensure the safety of its guests, etc.

The importance of this decision is found in how the Court analyzed the case to reach its conclusion that summary judgment was proper: The Court noted that it was not modifying prior duty/risk analysis but was clarifying how the analysis is to be conducted—The issues of “duty” and “scope of duty” are separate inquiries that require separate analysis.

In Campbell, the Court acknowledged that “duty” is a question of law for the court. It then concluded that “(w)hether a particular risk falls within the scope of that duty, by contrast, ‘is fact sensitive and ultimately turns on a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of that duty.’” However, the court continued, “‘(t)he determination of legal cause/scope of the duty involves a purely legal question.’” The Court conducted an historical analysis noting that prior decisions had “merged the concept of duty and scope of duty into a single consideration.”

On the threshold question of duty, the Court acknowledged that in the context of third-party criminal activity, Windsor Court, as an innkeeper, owed a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect its patrons from criminal acts of third parties. Having found this duty, the Court then concluded that “Campbell cannot meet the ‘scope of the duty’ element of his claim.” In other words, “the scope of the duty owed by the Windsor Court did not encompass the risk of the particular harm and Injury Mr. Campbell suffered.”

Here the court asked whether this particular risk and injury were “foreseeable.” The Court examined multiple factors to find that the robbery was not foreseeable, but the Court further noted “perhaps even more important to our decision is the manner in which the robbery occurred.” Campbell was not unexpectedly accosted, but his own actions placed him in peril. As such, the Court found no “ease of association” between Windsor Court’s duty to take reasonable precautions to protect its guests and the risk that the guest would voluntarily approach an unknown vehicle and flash a sizable pile of cash.

Justice Crain concurred in the opinion and noted that “scope of duty can be resolved on summary judgment if reasonable persons could not disagree that the manner of the injury is either within or beyond the scope of the duty.” Justice Crain also noted that the manner of injury must be analyzed in the context of “foreseeability” from the perspective of the premises owner and have an “ease of association” between the duty and the manner of injury—this analysis is necessary to “avoid making a defendant the insurer of all persons against all harms.” Thus, he agreed with the majority that Campbell was unable to establish the scope of duty element.

Reference:

Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc., 2024-00840 (La. 3/21/25), 403 So. 3d 573.