STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
04-1569
IRENE AND LOUIS CASTILLE
VERSUS
LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT
********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20035328 HONORABLE GLENNON P. EVERETT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, and Marc T. Amy, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
James J. Davidson, III Bryan E. Lege Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier, & McElligott P. O. Drawer 2908 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 237-1660 COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government
Jeffery F. Speer Julian Louis Gibbens, III Jason E. Fontenot Doucet & Speer P. O. Box 4303 Lafayette, LA 70502-4303 Telephone: (337) 232-0405 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiffs/Appellants- Louis Castille and Irene Castille THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.
In this summary judgment proceeding, plaintiffs, Irene and Louis
Castille, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant,
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government (hereinafter the “City”). Mr. and
Mrs. Castille were injured while making a turn at an intersection. Their view of
oncoming traffic was obstructed by debris placed by City employees during their
cleanup efforts after a hurricane had struck the area. They believed the City’s failure
to remove the debris caused their accident and sued to recover damages for their
injuries. Because La.R.S. 29:735(A) immunizes the City from liability for injuries
or damages sustained by citizens as a result of the City’s emergency preparedness
activities, we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion.
I.
ISSUE
We must decide whether the immunity provision of the Louisiana
Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act absolves the City of
responsibility for damages and injuries caused when its employees put debris from
a hurricane in an intersection, resulting in an accident. If the Act does apply, we need
not consider the Castilles’ assertion that the conduct of the City rises to willful
misconduct, triggering the exception to immunity.
II.
FACTS
Hurricane Lili struck Lafayette on October 3, 2002. Governor Mike
Foster declared a state of emergency for Louisiana; Walter Comeaux, Lafayette’s
City-Parish president, issued a declaration of emergency for the local area as well.
1 As a result of the weather, roads were littered with fallen trees and other debris. In
particular, one large tree had fallen in the intersection of Louisiana Avenue and Webb
Street, near the home of John and Kathy Landry. The City began efforts to remove
the debris. On October 3, City employees removed the tree from the intersection and
placed it on the Landrys’ property, which is located at the intersection. Mr. and Mrs.
Landry objected to the placement of the debris, and pointed out to the workers that
the debris on their property was piled high enough to obstruct the view of motorists
at the intersection. They also complained to the Lafayette Police Department.
Nevertheless, City road crews did not move the debris.
On October 5, Irene and Louis Castille attempted to make a left turn
from Webb Street onto Louisiana Avenue. Their car collided with a car driven by
Chad Savoy and Wendy Douglas. The Castilles filed a petition for damages against
the City for injuries sustained during the accident, alleging that City employees’
negligent placement of the debris by the intersection caused their accident by
impeding their view of oncoming traffic. The City filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance
and Disaster Act immunized the City from liability for injuries to persons and
property sustained during their emergency preparedness activities. The trial court
agreed that immunity exempted the City from liability and granted the motion. The
Castilles appeal, arguing that the statute voids immunity for actions involving willful
misconduct and that issues of material fact exist regarding whether the City’s actions
amounted to such conduct.
2 III.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and
Disaster Act, La.R.S. 29:721–:737, governs the state’s response to an emergency,
whether natural or man-made. Paragraph 1 of Section 723 identifying disasters
triggering application of the Act specifically includes hurricanes as disasters.
Hurricane Lili struck the Lafayette area on October 3, 2002. Both the governor and
the Lafayette City-Parish president declared a state of emergency for the area. This
was clearly an emergency situation. Paragraph 3 of Section 723 further explains that
“emergency preparedness” activities covered by the Act include “the mitigation of,
preparation for, response to, and the recovery from emergencies or disasters.” The
City sent its employees out during and after the hurricane specifically for the purpose
of facilitating the recovery effort. This effort required clearing roadways of debris
deposited by the hurricane to allow emergency vehicles to pass. The City employees
moving the debris blocking Louisiana Avenue, therefore, were involved in emergency
preparedness activities. The Act thus applies to this case.
The Act includes a provision immunizing state government entities and
their employees from liability for damages resulting from emergency preparedness
activities. The provision voids the immunity privilege for individual employees who
have engaged in willful misconduct: “Neither the state nor any political subdivision
thereof . . . nor, except in case of willful misconduct, the agents’ employees . . .
engaged in any . . . emergency preparedness activities . . . shall be liable for the death
of or injury to persons, or damage to property, as a result of such activity.” La.R.S.
29:735(A). The Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government is clearly a political
subdivision of the state, so that it is immunized from liability for injuries suffered by
3 persons as a result of the City’s response and recovery activities during an emergency.
The Castilles claim their injuries resulted from relocation of debris as a part of the
City’s cleanup activities after Hurricane Lili. The City, however, is immune from
liability for their injuries under the Act.
The Act contains an exception for willful misconduct, so that City
employees engaging in willful misconduct do not enjoy the protections of the Act.
The Castilles argue that this exception applies to the City. They assert that because
the Landrys conveyed their concerns about the effect of the placement of debris on
visibility in the road to both the City workers moving the debris and the Lafayette
Police Department, the City was on notice of the hazard. They insist that the City’s
placement and subsequent failure to remove the debris, despite notice of the hazard,
constituted willful misconduct voiding the immunity conferred by the Act.
The City argues that the immunity provided to a political subdivision
such as the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government is not subject to the
willful misconduct exception. The limiting phrase “except in case of willful
misconduct” refers only to employees or agents, not to a political subdivision. If the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
04-1569
IRENE AND LOUIS CASTILLE
VERSUS
LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT
********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20035328 HONORABLE GLENNON P. EVERETT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********
ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Jimmie C. Peters, and Marc T. Amy, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
James J. Davidson, III Bryan E. Lege Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier, & McElligott P. O. Drawer 2908 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 237-1660 COUNSEL FOR: Defendant/Appellee - Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government
Jeffery F. Speer Julian Louis Gibbens, III Jason E. Fontenot Doucet & Speer P. O. Box 4303 Lafayette, LA 70502-4303 Telephone: (337) 232-0405 COUNSEL FOR: Plaintiffs/Appellants- Louis Castille and Irene Castille THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.
In this summary judgment proceeding, plaintiffs, Irene and Louis
Castille, appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant,
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government (hereinafter the “City”). Mr. and
Mrs. Castille were injured while making a turn at an intersection. Their view of
oncoming traffic was obstructed by debris placed by City employees during their
cleanup efforts after a hurricane had struck the area. They believed the City’s failure
to remove the debris caused their accident and sued to recover damages for their
injuries. Because La.R.S. 29:735(A) immunizes the City from liability for injuries
or damages sustained by citizens as a result of the City’s emergency preparedness
activities, we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion.
I.
ISSUE
We must decide whether the immunity provision of the Louisiana
Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act absolves the City of
responsibility for damages and injuries caused when its employees put debris from
a hurricane in an intersection, resulting in an accident. If the Act does apply, we need
not consider the Castilles’ assertion that the conduct of the City rises to willful
misconduct, triggering the exception to immunity.
II.
FACTS
Hurricane Lili struck Lafayette on October 3, 2002. Governor Mike
Foster declared a state of emergency for Louisiana; Walter Comeaux, Lafayette’s
City-Parish president, issued a declaration of emergency for the local area as well.
1 As a result of the weather, roads were littered with fallen trees and other debris. In
particular, one large tree had fallen in the intersection of Louisiana Avenue and Webb
Street, near the home of John and Kathy Landry. The City began efforts to remove
the debris. On October 3, City employees removed the tree from the intersection and
placed it on the Landrys’ property, which is located at the intersection. Mr. and Mrs.
Landry objected to the placement of the debris, and pointed out to the workers that
the debris on their property was piled high enough to obstruct the view of motorists
at the intersection. They also complained to the Lafayette Police Department.
Nevertheless, City road crews did not move the debris.
On October 5, Irene and Louis Castille attempted to make a left turn
from Webb Street onto Louisiana Avenue. Their car collided with a car driven by
Chad Savoy and Wendy Douglas. The Castilles filed a petition for damages against
the City for injuries sustained during the accident, alleging that City employees’
negligent placement of the debris by the intersection caused their accident by
impeding their view of oncoming traffic. The City filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance
and Disaster Act immunized the City from liability for injuries to persons and
property sustained during their emergency preparedness activities. The trial court
agreed that immunity exempted the City from liability and granted the motion. The
Castilles appeal, arguing that the statute voids immunity for actions involving willful
misconduct and that issues of material fact exist regarding whether the City’s actions
amounted to such conduct.
2 III.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
The Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and
Disaster Act, La.R.S. 29:721–:737, governs the state’s response to an emergency,
whether natural or man-made. Paragraph 1 of Section 723 identifying disasters
triggering application of the Act specifically includes hurricanes as disasters.
Hurricane Lili struck the Lafayette area on October 3, 2002. Both the governor and
the Lafayette City-Parish president declared a state of emergency for the area. This
was clearly an emergency situation. Paragraph 3 of Section 723 further explains that
“emergency preparedness” activities covered by the Act include “the mitigation of,
preparation for, response to, and the recovery from emergencies or disasters.” The
City sent its employees out during and after the hurricane specifically for the purpose
of facilitating the recovery effort. This effort required clearing roadways of debris
deposited by the hurricane to allow emergency vehicles to pass. The City employees
moving the debris blocking Louisiana Avenue, therefore, were involved in emergency
preparedness activities. The Act thus applies to this case.
The Act includes a provision immunizing state government entities and
their employees from liability for damages resulting from emergency preparedness
activities. The provision voids the immunity privilege for individual employees who
have engaged in willful misconduct: “Neither the state nor any political subdivision
thereof . . . nor, except in case of willful misconduct, the agents’ employees . . .
engaged in any . . . emergency preparedness activities . . . shall be liable for the death
of or injury to persons, or damage to property, as a result of such activity.” La.R.S.
29:735(A). The Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government is clearly a political
subdivision of the state, so that it is immunized from liability for injuries suffered by
3 persons as a result of the City’s response and recovery activities during an emergency.
The Castilles claim their injuries resulted from relocation of debris as a part of the
City’s cleanup activities after Hurricane Lili. The City, however, is immune from
liability for their injuries under the Act.
The Act contains an exception for willful misconduct, so that City
employees engaging in willful misconduct do not enjoy the protections of the Act.
The Castilles argue that this exception applies to the City. They assert that because
the Landrys conveyed their concerns about the effect of the placement of debris on
visibility in the road to both the City workers moving the debris and the Lafayette
Police Department, the City was on notice of the hazard. They insist that the City’s
placement and subsequent failure to remove the debris, despite notice of the hazard,
constituted willful misconduct voiding the immunity conferred by the Act.
The City argues that the immunity provided to a political subdivision
such as the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government is not subject to the
willful misconduct exception. The limiting phrase “except in case of willful
misconduct” refers only to employees or agents, not to a political subdivision. If the
legislature had intended that phrase to apply to political subdivisions, as well as to
individual employees, it would have inserted that phrase at the beginning or end of
the sentence, rather than in the middle. A survey of other states’ comparable
immunity provisions in their emergency management statutes shows almost identical
language in the majority of states. For example, Kansas’s Emergency Preparedness
Act § 48-915(b) states:
Whenever a proclamation is issued declaring a state of disaster emergency . . ., neither the state nor any political subdivision of the state nor, except in cases of willful misconduct, gross negligence or bad faith, the employees, agents, or representatives of the state or any political subdivision thereof . . . shall be liable for the death of or
4 injury to persons, or for damage to property, as a result of any such activity performed during the existence of such state of disaster emergency. . . .
The largely uniform language suggests that this construction of the statute was a
deliberate choice on the part of the legislature. In contrast, Oregon’s Emergency
Management Services Act § 401.515(1) states:
During the existence of an emergency, the state and any local government, any agent thereof or emergency service worker engaged in any emergency services activity . . . shall not, except in cases of willful misconduct, gross negligence or bad faith, be liable for the death or injury of any person, or damage or loss of property, as a result of that activity.
This language, as opposed to the previous language, would at least lend credibility
to the argument that the exception applies to “the state and any local government,”
as well as to employees. There is a marked paucity of caselaw interpreting state
emergency management statutes.
The Castilles rely on White v. Rapides Parish School Board, 03-1172
(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 146, writ denied, 04-872 (La. 5/20/04), 874 So.2d
158. This case involves liability of a school board for having a student arrested for
stealing a bicycle. The school board claimed it was entitled to immunity under
La.R.S. 9:2798.1, which regulates decision-making of public entities and their
employees. The Act provides immunity under paragraph B for decisions made in the
scope of the employees’ duty. The exception for willful misconduct applies to both
the public entity and its employees. The language of that statute, however, is very
clear:
B. Liability shall not be imposed on public entities or their officers or employees based upon the exercise or performance [of] . . . their policymaking or discretionary acts when such acts are within the course and scope of their lawful powers and duties.
5 C. The provisions of Subsection B of this Section are not applicable:
....
(2) To acts or omissions which constitute criminal, fraudulent, malicious, intentional, willful . . . misconduct.
La.R.S. 9:2798.1.
The Castilles have not joined any individual City employees as
defendants in their suit. Their suit is against only the City itself. Under the Act, the
City enjoys immunity from legal responsibility for damages sustained during
emergency preparedness activities. It, therefore, cannot be liable to the Castilles for
their injuries in the car accident.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs
of appeal are assessed to appellants, Irene and Louis Castille.