Brady v. State ex rel. Louisiana Health & Human Resources Administration
1988 WL 16510, 525 So. 2d 102, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 752 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An institution has no duty to protect others from harm caused by a resident's sudden, unpredictable medical event, such as a seizure, when preventing such harm would require unreasonably restrictive measures that undermine the institution's purpose of providing a normalized living environment.
Facts:
- Pinecrest State School is a state-run residential facility for mentally handicapped individuals, aiming to provide a protected but not overly restrictive environment.
- Berdie Edwards, a moderately mentally handicapped resident in her 60s, had a history of infrequent and unpredictable seizures.
- On November 7, 1984, Pinecrest held an annual street dance on its grounds for residents, employees, and their families.
- Dora Brady, an off-duty Pinecrest employee, attended the street dance.
- While at the dance, Brady was unexpectedly struck from behind by Edwards, who was experiencing what witnesses believed to be an involuntary seizure.
- As a result of the collision, both Brady and Edwards fell to the ground, and Brady suffered a broken foot.
Procedural Posture:
- Dora H. Brady and Stephen Brady filed suit against the State of Louisiana in the trial court to recover damages.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the State, dismissing the Bradys' suit.
- The Bradys, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to this intermediate court of appeal; the State is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the State, through its administration of a residential school for the mentally handicapped, breach a duty of care owed to an off-duty employee by failing to prevent a resident from causing her injury during an unforeseeable seizure at a school-sponsored event?
Opinions:
Majority - Domengeaux, Judge.
No, the State did not breach a duty of care. The duty owed by the State did not extend to protecting Dora Brady from the unforeseeable risk of being knocked down by a moderately mentally handicapped resident experiencing an unpredictable seizure. The court applied a duty-risk analysis and found that the harm was caused by an involuntary seizure that could not have been predicted. Preventing such an injury would have required sheltering the resident from all human contact, an unreasonable and burdensome measure that would undermine the school's mission to provide a normalized environment. The court also declined to impose strict liability, reasoning that permitting Edwards to attend the dance did not create an unreasonable risk of harm, especially considering the same moral, economic, and social policy factors used in the negligence analysis.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the duty of care for institutions managing individuals with medical or mental conditions. It establishes that the duty is not absolute and does not require the prevention of all foreseeable harm, especially when the harm stems from an unpredictable medical event. The ruling balances the safety of the public and employees against the therapeutic goal of allowing residents a degree of freedom and normalcy. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in negligence claims against such institutions where the injury results from an unforeseeable medical episode, requiring them to show the institution's supervision was unreasonable rather than merely imperfect.
