Lynda Estorffe v. Honorable Tom Schedler in his official capacity as the duly elected Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: August 20, 2020
• Docket: 2019CW1639
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LYNDA ESTORFFE NO. 2019 CW 1639

VERSUS Page 1 of 2)

HONORABLE TOM SCHEDLER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE

DULY ELECTED SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF AUGUST 20, 2020 LOUISIANA AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

In Re: Honorable Torn Schedler in his ( then) official capacity as the duly eleceted Secretary of State for the state

of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2018- 10898.

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The October 23, 2019, judgment the denying motion for summary judgment filed by relators, the State of

Louisiana and the Honorable Tom Schedler in his ( then) official

capacity as the duly elected Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana, is reversed, and we hereby grant relators' motion for summary judgment and dismiss all claims asserted by Lynda Estorffe against relators. Ms. Estorffe' s claims against relators are based on the allegedly defective nature of the recoil system of voting machine number 31174 and relators'

alleged negligent inspection of the recoil system. To establish a claim of negligence under La. Civ. Code art. 2315 or a claim

of strict liability under La. Civ. Code art. 2317 and La. R. S. 9: 2800, Ms. Estorffe must show, among other things, that relators had actual or constructive notice of the particular defect. See Netecke v. State ex rel. DOTD, 98- 1182 ( La. 10/ 19/ 99), 747 So. 2d 489, 494 and Clark v. East Baton Rouge Parish Department of Public Works, 2017- 1445 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 6/ 18), 248 So. 3d 409, 412. It is undisputed that state employees inspected the voting machines at issue on a monthly basis, including a week prior to the April 5, 2014 election. These inspections included plugging each of the voting machines into an outlet and thereafter pulling on the electrical cords of each voting machine to ensure the cords retracted into the voting machines. There were no reports of defects in the any recoil system of the issue voting machine at prior to the election, nor did Ms. Estorffe document any defect in the voting machine at issue at any time prior tc her fall. Absent notice of an issue with a specific voting machine' s recoil mechanism upon general inspection or otherwise, relators had no

independent duty to perform additional inspections of the recoiling mechanisms of See every voting machine. Jenkins v. Hernandez, 2019- 0874 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 3/ 20), --- So. 3d ---, 2020 WL 2898123 at * 4. (" In deciding whether to impose a duty in a particular case, the court must make in a policy decision light of the unique facts and circumstances presented.") Therefore, Ms. Estorffe cannot meet her burden of proof at trial that relators had actual or constructive notice of a defect in the recoil system in machine number 31174 voting or that STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2019 CW 1639

Page 2 of 2)

relators are liable for negligent inspection of the voting machine. See e. g., Broussard v. Gulfport Energy Corporation, 2018- 840 ( La. App. 3rd Cir. 6/ 5/ 19), 274 So. 3d 613. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss all claims asserted by Ms. Estorffe against relators with prejudice.

PMC JEW

Holdridge, J. concurs.

EPUTY LE K OF COURT FOR THE COURT