Articles Posted in Strict Liability

As previously discussed, the Daigle v. City of Shreveport case regards an instance where a woman slips and falls on a freshly painted city sidewalk, that had no markings to indicate it was freshly painted, and she sues the city for negligence damages.

When an individual is injured as a result of an unreasonably dangerous condition existing on a landowner’s property, he can recover damages relying on La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315, which is the basis of general negligence liability. The owner, or person, having custody of the property has a duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition, and must discover any unreasonably dangerous condition on the premises, and either correct that condition, or warn potential victims of its existence. Louisiana’s duty-risk analysis is made up of five elements: 1) duty – proof that the defendant has a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard, 2) breach – proof that the defendant’s conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard, 3) cause-in-fact – proof that the substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s injuries, 4) scope of liability – proof that the defendant’s substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and 5) damages – proof of actual damages.

Proof of liability on the part of a public entity, such as a city in this case, is governed by La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2317, and provides in part that individuals are responsible, not only for the damage occasioned by their own acts, but for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom they are answerable, or of things which they have in their custody.

The Daigle v. City of Shreveport case regards an instance where a woman slips and falls on a freshly painted city sidewalk, that had no markings to indicate it was freshly painted, and she sues the city for negligence damages. A second point of the case, and the first to be discussed, is the sanctioning of the city’s attorney for ‘wasting’ time in attempting to get an unnecessary Independent Medical Examination (IME) from a physician who was highly unattainable, and using this as an improper means to delay the proceedings. Also, the trial judge in this case was placed on the witness list, and the attempt to have the judge recuse himself was also determined to be used as an inappropriate manner for the city’s attorney to delay the proceedings.

A trial court’s judgment must be found to be clearly wrong or that there was an error in the law. Great deference if provided the trial court and the finders of fact because they are the parties, be it judge or jury, that has the greatest and most humanlike exposure to the witnesses. An appellate court, however, merely has documents pertaining to the facts and witnesses, but cannot personally observe the witness’ demeanor, truthfulness, etc. An appellate court determines if the judgment of the trier of fact was a reasonable one, not whether it was the correct one.

When asking the court for an IME, a party must show: 1) that the physical or mental condition of the party sought to be examined is in controversy, and 2) that good cause exists for requiring the party to submit to the examination. In determining if an IME is proper, a court has wide discretion and should determine whether to allow for one on a case by case basis. Courts will consider whether the physical/medical information can be attained by other means, and that a treating physician should be given greater weight than a physician who only examines a patient a couple times or even just once. Continuances for IMEs are discretionary and may be granted if there is good ground for one. La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1601.