Gonzales v. Kissner
2009 La. App. LEXIS 1592, 2008 La.App. 1 Cir. 2154, 24 So. 3d 214 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Professional Rescuer's Doctrine does not bar recovery for a professional rescuer when the defendant's conduct in creating or failing to mitigate a risk is so blameworthy that imposing tort liability serves as a punishment or deterrent.
Facts:
- John and Elena Kissner owned a 100-pound German shepherd.
- The day before the incident, the Kissners' dog bit a 13-year-old boy.
- Toni Gonzales, an Iberville Parish Animal Control Officer, was dispatched to the Kissner residence to investigate the complaint about the prior day's bite.
- Upon Gonzales' arrival, Elena Kissner came outside to speak with her, leaving the dog unsecured inside the house.
- The Kissners knew that their dog had inexplicably escaped from the house on two previous occasions.
- While Gonzales and Elena Kissner were talking, the dog forced open the back door, escaped the house, and mauled Gonzales without provocation.
- After being temporarily pulled off, the dog slipped its collar and attacked Gonzales a second time, causing injuries to her head, face, and neck.
Procedural Posture:
- Toni Gonzales (plaintiff) sued John and Elena Kissner (defendants) in the trial court for personal injury damages.
- The Iberville Parish Council intervened in the action to recover benefits it had paid to Gonzales.
- Gonzales filed an amended petition adding the property owner, Catherine Kissner, as a defendant.
- Gonzales filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against all defendants.
- The trial court granted the partial summary judgment against all defendants.
- Following the defendants' motion for a new trial, the trial court set aside the judgment against Catherine Kissner but upheld the judgment against John and Elena Kissner.
- John and Elena Kissner (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine bar an animal control officer from recovering damages for injuries sustained from a dog attack when the dog's owners knew of the dog's dangerous propensities and recent aggression, yet failed to properly restrain it?
Opinions:
Majority - Pettigrew, J.
No. The Professional Rescuer's Doctrine does not bar recovery where the dog owner's failure to properly restrain a known-dangerous animal constitutes conduct so blameworthy that tort recovery should be imposed for purposes of punishment or deterrence. Under Louisiana Civil Code art. 2321, a dog owner is strictly liable for damages the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person's provocation. Here, Ms. Gonzales did not provoke the dog, and the Kissners could have easily prevented the attack by locking the door, a reasonable precaution given their knowledge of the dog's recent aggression and its history of escaping the home. While the risk of being bitten is a 'dependent risk' inherent in an animal control officer's duties, an exception to the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine applies. The Kissners' failure to confine their dog, despite knowing it had attacked a child the day before and had escaped twice before, was so blameworthy that allowing recovery serves the purpose of punishment and deterrence. Therefore, the doctrine does not preclude their liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'blameworthy conduct' exception to the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine in Louisiana. It establishes that a defendant's failure to take simple, reasonable precautions in the face of a known and serious danger can be deemed sufficiently blameworthy to overcome the doctrine's bar on recovery. This ruling empowers professional rescuers to hold negligent parties accountable when their conduct goes beyond creating a typical risk inherent in the job and rises to the level of egregious carelessness. Future litigation will likely focus on defining the threshold for what constitutes 'so blameworthy' conduct, but this case provides a strong precedent for rescuers injured due to a defendant's failure to contain a known, specific threat.
Unlock the full brief for Gonzales v. Kissner