Veronica Croney and Frank Croney v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Veronica Croney and Frank Croney v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge

DecidedJune 18, 2025

Docket2025 CW 0229

StatusUnknown

This text of Veronica Croney and Frank Croney v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge (Veronica Croney and Frank Croney v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Veronica Croney and Frank Croney v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge, (La. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

VERONICA CRONEY AND FRANK NO. 2025 CW 0229 CRONEY

VERSUS

CITY PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, BREC FOUNDATION, THE RECREATION AND PARK

COMMISSION FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE JUNE 18, 2025

In Re: The Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge ("BREC"), applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 669609.

BEFORE : THERIOT, HESTER, AND EDWARDS, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court's January 30, 2025 judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, The Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, is reversed. A motion for summary judgment shall be granted where the evidence demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A) (3). As the party moving for summary judgment, defendant sustained its initial burden of proof and established a prima facie case that it was entitled to immunity pursuant to La. R.S. 9:2795. The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether the defendant willfully or maliciously failed to warn against a dangerous condition. See La. R.S. 9:2795(B). Souza v. St. Tammany Par., 2011-2198 (La. App. Ist Cir. 6/8/12), 93 So. 3d 745, 749. A failure to warn of a dangerous condition connotes a conscious course of action, and is deemed willful or malicious when action is knowingly taken or not taken, which would likely cause injury, with conscious indifference to the consequences thereof. Id. at 730. Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the claims asserted by plaintiffs, Veronica Croney and Frank Croney, against defendant, The Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of Bast Baton Rouge, are dismissed.

MRT

CHH BDE

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

A ce 4 » cme

PUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

VERONICA CRONEY AND FRANK NO. 2025 CW 0229 CRONEY

VERSUS

CITY PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, BREC FOUNDATION, THE RECREATION AND PARK

COMMISSION FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE JUNE 18, 2025

In Re: The Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge ("BREC"), applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 669609.

BEFORE : THERIOT, HESTER, AND EDWARDS, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court's January 30, 2025 judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant, The Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, is reversed. A motion for summary judgment shall be granted where the evidence demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A) (3). As the party moving for summary judgment, defendant sustained its initial burden of proof and established a prima facie case that it was entitled to immunity pursuant to La. R.S. 9:2795. The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether the defendant willfully or maliciously failed to warn against a dangerous condition. See La. R.S. 9:2795(B). Souza v. St. Tammany Par., 2011-2198 (La. App. Ist Cir. 6/8/12), 93 So. 3d 745, 749. A failure to warn of a dangerous condition connotes a conscious course of action, and is deemed willful or malicious when action is knowingly taken or not taken, which would likely cause injury, with conscious indifference to the consequences thereof. Id. at 730. Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the claims asserted by plaintiffs, Veronica Croney and Frank Croney, against defendant, The Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of Bast Baton Rouge, are dismissed.

MRT

CHH BDE

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

A ce 4 » cme

PUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Veronica Croney and Frank Croney v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veronica-croney-and-frank-croney-v-city-parish-of-east-baton-rouge-lactapp-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack