Deshotel v. Travelers Indemnity Company
1971 La. LEXIS 4601, 257 La. 567, 243 So. 2d 259 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's vicarious liability for their minor child's torts is intended to protect third parties and does not impute the child's negligence to the parent to bar the parent's own recovery for personal injuries. Any immunity from suit between family members is a personal defense that cannot be asserted by an insurer in a direct action.
Facts:
- Noah Deshotel owned a car and an automobile insurance policy with Travelers Indemnity Company.
- The policy contained an omnibus clause that provided coverage to others driving the car with permission, including his son.
- Noah Deshotel was a passenger in his own car.
- His unemancipated minor son, Ronald Deshotel, was driving the car.
- Ronald Deshotel's negligence caused a car accident.
- Noah Deshotel suffered personal injuries as a result of the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Noah Deshotel sued his insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company, in the trial court under the state's direct action statute.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Noah Deshotel for the policy limit of $5,000.
- Travelers Indemnity Company (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeal's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Louisiana Civil Code Article 2318, which makes a father financially responsible for his minor son's torts, bar the father from recovering damages from his own insurer for injuries caused by the son's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Barham, Justice
No. Louisiana Civil Code Article 2318 does not bar a father from recovering from his insurer for injuries caused by his minor son's negligence. The court reasoned that under Article 2315, a general tort provision, a father has a cause of action against his son for the son's delicts. Article 2318, which holds parents responsible for their minor children's actions, merely attaches financial responsibility to the parent for the protection of third parties; it does not impute the child's negligence to the parent so as to bar the parent's own claim. Furthermore, even if a procedural bar or immunity from suit existed between the father and son, that defense would be personal to the son and could not be asserted by the son's insurer in a direct action lawsuit, following precedents like Edwards v. Royal Indemnity Co.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of intra-family tort liability and the nature of vicarious liability under Louisiana law. It establishes that a parent's vicarious liability for a child's torts is a mechanism to protect third parties, not a shield for insurers to deny coverage when the parent is the injured party. This ruling prevents insurers from using the doctrine of parental vicarious liability as a form of imputed contributory negligence. It solidifies the principle that procedural bars to suit, like family immunities, are personal defenses that cannot be asserted by an insurer in a direct action.
