public duty doctrine in Louisiana

1999Rule IV, Part 2, § 3. [1] Bowie subsequently pled guilty to second degree murder as a result of the incident. [2] See Shepard v. Bradford, 98-172 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/98) , 721 So.2d 1049 (granting summary judgment in favor of the City of DeRidder in a case involving the police department's alleged failure to prevent a fight at a public park where the police had no contact with the plaintiff prior to his attack) (Judge Thibodeaux dissented, noting that the public duty doctrine and its exceptions should not be applicable in Louisiana); Miller v. Bailey, 621 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993) (fail

1993Zeagler v. Town of Jena, 556 So.2d 978 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 560 So.2d 14 (La.1990), and cases cited therein.

1999Courts have previously *611 recognized two exceptions to the public duty doctrine: (1) where the statute or ordinance setting forth the duty indicates by its language that the duty is designed to protect a particular class of individuals; and (2) where the officer's general duty has been transformed into a duty owed to an individual through closeness or proximity in time. [2] Kendrick v. City of Lake Charles, 500 So.2d 866 (La.

1999But see Tompkins v. Kenner Police Dept., 402 So.2d 276 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1981) (police department's exception of no cause of action denied where police arrived at scene of motorcycle accident, were told by motorcycle driver to attend to his passenger who had been thrown several feet away, but failed to discover accident victim who was lying a few feet away and who later died); Kendrick, supra (City's exception of no cause of action denied where individual was arrested for drunk driving, taken into custody and found to have a .166% blood alcohol level, released 3 hours later and then had a fatal

1998Guidry, 558 So.2d 300 .

1997Guidry [v. Airport Authority for Airport District No. 1 of Calcasieu Parish, 558 So.2d 300 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990)], supra. A duty owed to the public in general may be transformed into a duty owed to an individual through closeness or proximity in time.

2002In Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), 744 So.2d 606 , the Supreme Court discussed Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1 (La.1989) and the application of the duty-risk analysis, rather than the public duty doctrine, to claims brought against employees of public entities.

2001In Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La.9/8/99), 744 So.2d 606, 610 , the Louisiana Supreme Court, quoting Stewart v. Schmieder, 386 So.2d 1351 (La.1980), stated: *788 The public duty doctrine has been defined as follows: [I]f the duty which the official authority imposes upon an officer is a duty to the public, a failure to perform it, or an inadequate or erroneous performance, must be a public, not an individual injury, and must be redressed, if at all, in some form of public prosecution.

1999See Stroik v. Ponseti, 96-2897 (La.9/9/97), 699 So.2d 1072 ; Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 94-0952 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 318 ; Berry v. State Through Dept.

1995In Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 94-0952 (La. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 318 , the supreme court reiterated the following four-prong inquiry of the duty/risk analysis: (1) Was the conduct in question a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to the plaintiff, i.e., was it a cause-in-fact of the harm which occurred? (2) Did the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff? (3) Was the duty breached? (4) Was the risk, and harm caused, within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?

1999Rule IV, Part 2, § 3. [1] Bowie subsequently pled guilty to second degree murder as a result of the incident. [2] See Shepard v. Bradford, 98-172 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/98) , 721 So.2d 1049 (granting summary judgment in favor of the City of DeRidder in a case involving the police department's alleged failure to prevent a fight at a public park where the police had no contact with the plaintiff prior to his attack) (Judge Thibodeaux dissented, noting that the public duty doctrine and its exceptions should not be applicable in Louisiana); Miller v. Bailey, 621 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993) (fail

1991See for example Chance v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 567 So.2d 683 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1990); Guidry v. Airport Authority for Airport District No. 1 of Calcasieu Parish, 558 So.2d 300 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1990); Nichols v. Nichols, 556 So.2d 876, 878-879 (La.App.1990); Zeagler v. Town of Jena, 556 So.2d 978 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ denied, 560 So.2d 14 (La.1990); Kendrick v. City of Lake Charles, 500 So.2d at 870 ; Lowe v. Patterson, 492 So.2d 110 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); Smith v. City of Kenner, 428 So.2d 1171, 1173-1174 (La.App.1983); Tompk

1993Zeagler v. Town of Jena, 556 So.2d 978 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 560 So.2d 14 (La.1990), and cases cited therein.

1991See for example Chance v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 567 So.2d 683 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1990); Guidry v. Airport Authority for Airport District No. 1 of Calcasieu Parish, 558 So.2d 300 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1990); Nichols v. Nichols, 556 So.2d 876, 878-879 (La.App.1990); Zeagler v. Town of Jena, 556 So.2d 978 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ denied, 560 So.2d 14 (La.1990); Kendrick v. City of Lake Charles, 500 So.2d at 870 ; Lowe v. Patterson, 492 So.2d 110 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 496 So.2d 355 (La.1986); Smith v. City of Kenner, 428 So.2d 1171, 1173-1174 (La.App.1983); Tompk

1992Corp., supra. *26 Although the application of the duty factor of duty-risk analysis and of the public immunity doctrine were seriously disputed and extensively briefed by all the litigants, in view of our findings and holding on the cause-in-fact element of the duty-risk analysis, we need not and do not discuss or rely on the lack of a duty or an immunity factor under the public duty doctrine to affirm the trial court's judgment.

1988In Sunlake, supra at 1302 we noted: the Court in Stewart did not expressly overrule the public duty doctrine, but we are mindful of the following language which is found in Stewart : `... the mere fact that a duty is of a public nature, and benefits the general public, does not require a conclusion that the City cannot be found liable for the breach of that duty.' [ Stewart, supra at 1358 ].

1991See also Thomas v. State, 545 So.2d 632 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 551 So.2d 639 (La.1989); Lott v. Landor, 452 So.2d 1266 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writs denied, 458 So.2d 119 , 125 (La.1984).

1989Stewart v. Schmieder, 386 So.2d 1351 (La.1980); Lott v. Landor, 452 So.2d 1266 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied 458 So.2d 119 , 125 (La.1984).

1991See also Thomas v. State, 545 So.2d 632 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 551 So.2d 639 (La.1989); Lott v. Landor, 452 So.2d 1266 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writs denied, 458 So.2d 119 , 125 (La.1984).

1989Stewart v. Schmieder, 386 So.2d 1351 (La.1980); Lott v. Landor, 452 So.2d 1266 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied 458 So.2d 119 , 125 (La.1984).

1999Rule IV, Part 2, § 3. [1] Bowie subsequently pled guilty to second degree murder as a result of the incident. [2] See Shepard v. Bradford, 98-172 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/98) , 721 So.2d 1049 (granting summary judgment in favor of the City of DeRidder in a case involving the police department's alleged failure to prevent a fight at a public park where the police had no contact with the plaintiff prior to his attack) (Judge Thibodeaux dissented, noting that the public duty doctrine and its exceptions should not be applicable in Louisiana); Miller v. Bailey, 621 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993) (fail

1999Rule IV, Part 2, § 3. [1] Bowie subsequently pled guilty to second degree murder as a result of the incident. [2] See Shepard v. Bradford, 98-172 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/98) , 721 So.2d 1049 (granting summary judgment in favor of the City of DeRidder in a case involving the police department's alleged failure to prevent a fight at a public park where the police had no contact with the plaintiff prior to his attack) (Judge Thibodeaux dissented, noting that the public duty doctrine and its exceptions should not be applicable in Louisiana); Miller v. Bailey, 621 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993) (fail

1999Rule IV, Part 2, § 3. [1] Bowie subsequently pled guilty to second degree murder as a result of the incident. [2] See Shepard v. Bradford, 98-172 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/98) , 721 So.2d 1049 (granting summary judgment in favor of the City of DeRidder in a case involving the police department's alleged failure to prevent a fight at a public park where the police had no contact with the plaintiff prior to his attack) (Judge Thibodeaux dissented, noting that the public duty doctrine and its exceptions should not be applicable in Louisiana); Miller v. Bailey, 621 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993) (fail

1999Rule IV, Part 2, § 3. [1] Bowie subsequently pled guilty to second degree murder as a result of the incident. [2] See Shepard v. Bradford, 98-172 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/4/98) , 721 So.2d 1049 (granting summary judgment in favor of the City of DeRidder in a case involving the police department's alleged failure to prevent a fight at a public park where the police had no contact with the plaintiff prior to his attack) (Judge Thibodeaux dissented, noting that the public duty doctrine and its exceptions should not be applicable in Louisiana); Miller v. Bailey, 621 So.2d 1174 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993) (fail

1997The other issue of concern involves whether the rule established in Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd., 650 So.2d 712 (La.1994) that allows comparison of fault between intentional tortfeasors and negligent tortfeasor is applicable. custodial liability Wilson v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 576 So.2d 490 (La.1991) allowed this court the first opportunity to set forth the test which should be applied when the victim of a crime committed by an escapee sues prison authorities for damages inflicted by the escaped prisoner.

1997The other issue of concern involves whether the rule established in Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd., 650 So.2d 712 (La.1994) that allows comparison of fault between intentional tortfeasors and negligent tortfeasor is applicable. custodial liability Wilson v. Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 576 So.2d 490 (La.1991) allowed this court the first opportunity to set forth the test which should be applied when the victim of a crime committed by an escapee sues prison authorities for damages inflicted by the escaped prisoner.

1996Kramer v. Continental Casualty Co., 92-1131 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 6/22/94), 641 So.2d 557 , writ not considered, 94-2576 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 399 , writ denied, 94-2473 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 402 ; 94-2474 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 403 ; and 94-2475 (La.12/19/94), 648j7 So.2d 403.

1996Kramer v. Continental Casualty Co., 92-1131 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 6/22/94), 641 So.2d 557 , writ not considered, 94-2576 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 399 , writ denied, 94-2473 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 402 ; 94-2474 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 403 ; and 94-2475 (La.12/19/94), 648j7 So.2d 403.

1996Kramer v. Continental Casualty Co., 92-1131 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 6/22/94), 641 So.2d 557 , writ not considered, 94-2576 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 399 , writ denied, 94-2473 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 402 ; 94-2474 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 403 ; and 94-2475 (La.12/19/94), 648j7 So.2d 403.

1996Kramer v. Continental Casualty Co., 92-1131 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 6/22/94), 641 So.2d 557 , writ not considered, 94-2576 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 399 , writ denied, 94-2473 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 402 ; 94-2474 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 403 ; and 94-2475 (La.12/19/94), 648j7 So.2d 403.

1995This court has addressed the application of the public duty doctrine to the actions of police officers in Kniepp v. City of Shreveport, supra .

1994The "public duty doctrine" was succinctly explained in Fusilier v. Russell, 345 So.2d 543 (La.App. 3 Cir.1977), writ denied, 347 So.2d 261 (La.1977), where Evangeline Parish deputies were sued for failing to arrest an intoxicated man who afterwards injured the plaintiff.

1994The "public duty doctrine" was succinctly explained in Fusilier v. Russell, 345 So.2d 543 (La.App. 3 Cir.1977), writ denied, 347 So.2d 261 (La.1977), where Evangeline Parish deputies were sued for failing to arrest an intoxicated man who afterwards injured the plaintiff.

1992State v. Vergo, 594 So.2d 1360 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992). [4] This view is further supported by the legislature enacting, the year following this incident, LSA-R.S. 9:2793.1 which granted immunity to public entities like the city and its employees from damages to property at the site of a crime, accident or fire.

1992This court in Fowler v. Roberts, 526 So.2d 266 (La.