risk-utility balancing test in Louisiana

1997This risk-utility balancing test followed by the court in Boyle is adopted from the court's earlier decision in Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So.2d 1146 (La.1983), and includes the weighing of "factors such as gravity and risk of harm, individual and societal rights and obligations, and the social utility involved." Boyle , 96-1158 at p. 5; 685 So.2d at 1083 .

1997The Boyle court applied the risk-utility balancing test of Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So.2d 1146 (La.1983), and Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corp., 258 La. 1067 , 249 So.2d 133 (1971), which requires the fact-finder to weigh factors such as gravity and risk of harm, individual and societal rights and obligations and the social utility involved in determining *1220 whether a condition presents an unreasonable risk of harm.

2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, Council No. 5747 , 03-1533 (La. 2/20/04), 866 So.2d 228

2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So

1993Bell, supra; Entrevia, supra. See also L.

1992Bell, supra; Entrevia, supra. See also L.

2019Id. at 342 .

2019Id. at 342 .

2019Williams, 217 So.3d at 425 , citing Broussard v. State ex rel.

2019Williams, 217 So.3d at 425 , citing Broussard v. State ex rel.

2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So

2015Broussard, 113 So.3d at 184 ; Pitre v. Louisiana Tech Univ., 95-1466 (La.5/10/96), 673 So.2d 585, 591 .

2009In determining whether a defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the courts use a risk-utility balancing test in which the gravity and risk of harm is balanced against the individual and societal rights and obligations, the social utility, and the cost and feasibility of repair. *292 Leonard , 05-32 at p. 5, 902 So.2d at 504 ; Joseph , 02-1996 at p. 4, 842 So.2d at 423 , citing Reitzell , 37,524 at pp. 3-4, 852 So.2d at 1232 .

2006Leonard , 05-32 at p. 5, 902 So.2d at 504 ; Joseph , 02-1996 at p. 4, 842 So.2d at 423 , citing Reitzell , 37,524 at pp. 3-4, 852 So.2d at 1232 .

2009In determining whether a defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the courts use a risk-utility balancing test in which the gravity and risk of harm is balanced against the individual and societal rights and obligations, the social utility, and the cost and feasibility of repair. *292 Leonard , 05-32 at p. 5, 902 So.2d at 504 ; Joseph , 02-1996 at p. 4, 842 So.2d at 423 , citing Reitzell , 37,524 at pp. 3-4, 852 So.2d at 1232 .

2006Leonard , 05-32 at p. 5, 902 So.2d at 504 ; Joseph , 02-1996 at p. 4, 842 So.2d at 423 , citing Reitzell , 37,524 at pp. 3-4, 852 So.2d at 1232 .

2009In determining whether a defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the courts use a risk-utility balancing test in which the gravity and risk of harm is balanced against the individual and societal rights and obligations, the social utility, and the cost and feasibility of repair. *292 Leonard , 05-32 at p. 5, 902 So.2d at 504 ; Joseph , 02-1996 at p. 4, 842 So.2d at 423 , citing Reitzell , 37,524 at pp. 3-4, 852 So.2d at 1232 .

2006Leonard , 05-32 at p. 5, 902 So.2d at 504 ; Joseph , 02-1996 at p. 4, 842 So.2d at 423 , citing Reitzell , 37,524 at pp. 3-4, 852 So.2d at 1232 .

1996Boyer v. Seal, 553 So.2d 827 (La.1989).

1996Citing the example of the cat in Boyer v. Seal, 553 So.2d 827 (La.1989) which innocuously brushed against the leg of the plaintiff, the majority mistakenly restates the mathe-matical-like expression of the supreme court for the risk-utility balancing test in the terms of a new math equation which doesn’t add up.

2026Id.

2022App. 5 Cir. 5/16/18), 247 So.3d 205, 210 , writ denied, 18-1074 (La. 10/15/18), 253 So.3d 1302 .

2022App. 5 Cir. 5/16/18), 247 So.3d 205, 210 , writ denied, 18-1074 (La. 10/15/18), 253 So.3d 1302 .

2020Id. at 544 .

2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So

2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So

2017To assist the finder of fact to determine whether a building's vice or defect creates an unreasonable risk of harm, the Supreme Court has adopted a risk-utility balancing test that weighs four factors: "(1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature." Id. at 184 (citing Dauzat v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc. , 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So

2016Although the precise phrase “unreasonable risk of harm” does not appear in the statutes governing premises liability, see Nugent v. Car Town of Monroe, Inc., 50,910 (La.App. 2d Cir. 9/28/16), 206 So.3d 369, 374 , to aid the trier-of-fact in making the unscientific, factual determination of whether a condition presents an unreasonable risk of harm, our courts have consistently given consideration to the risk-utility balancing test by which the fact-finder must balance the gravity and risk of harm against individual societal rights and obligations, the social utility of the thing, and the cost a

2014Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, supra; Dickson v. City of Shreveport, 47,268 (La.App.2d Cir.8/8/12), 104 So.3d 9 , writ denied, 2012-2284 (La.11/30/12), 103 So.3d 375 .

2014Chambers v. Village of Moreauville, supra; Dickson v. City of Shreveport, 47,268 (La.App.2d Cir.8/8/12), 104 So.3d 9 , writ denied, 2012-2284 (La.11/30/12), 103 So.3d 375 .