Guillot v. Doe
879 So.2d 374, 2004 WL 1472389 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander under Louisiana law, the claimant must prove the direct victim suffered such severe harm in a 'horrendous event' that one could reasonably expect the claimant to suffer severe, debilitating, and foreseeable mental anguish, which goes beyond the distress that normally accompanies an injury to a loved one.
Facts:
- Diane and Julien Lubiecki hosted a birthday sleepover for their son, inviting attendees to bring BB or pellet guns for a hunting trip.
- Melvin and Tammy Guillot allowed their seven-year-old son, Jonathan, to attend only after the Lubieckis repeatedly promised to supervise the children's use of the guns and to lock them in a closet when not in use.
- That night, the Lubieckis went to bed without securing the firearms as promised.
- The next morning, both Mr. and Mrs. Lubiecki left the house at different times, leaving the children unsupervised with access to the guns.
- Another child, Belton Richard, found a pellet gun and accidentally shot Jonathan in the forehead.
- The Lubieckis' daughter called Mrs. Guillot, describing the injury as a 'scratch'.
- The Guillots arrived minutes later to find Jonathan bleeding from the wound on his forehead.
- A pellet was surgically removed from Jonathan's forehead, and he later required psychological counseling for chronic adjustment disorder resulting from the trauma.
Procedural Posture:
- Melvin and Tammy Guillot, on behalf of their son Jonathan and for themselves, filed suit against Diane and Julien Lubiecki and their insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, in a Louisiana state trial court.
- The trial court found in favor of the Guillots.
- The trial court awarded Mr. Guillot, as Jonathan's representative, $45,000.00 in general damages and $3,454.76 in special damages.
- The trial court also awarded Mrs. Guillot $5,000.00 in general damages for mental anguish/emotional distress.
- The trial court apportioned fault as follows: 85% to the Lubieckis, 10% to Belton Richard (the shooter), and 5% to the Guillots.
- The Lubieckis and Allstate Insurance Company (Defendants/Appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
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 a mother who comes upon the scene shortly after her son sustained a non-life-threatening pellet gun wound to the forehead have a valid claim for bystander mental anguish damages under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315.6?
Opinions:
Majority - Woodard, Judge
No. A mother who witnesses the aftermath of her son receiving a minor physical injury does not have a valid claim for mental anguish because the event does not meet the legal threshold for bystander recovery. To recover under La.Civ.Code art. 2315.6, the claimant must prove four elements. While Mrs. Guillot satisfied the first two (coming upon the scene soon after and being a parent), she failed to satisfy the last two. The court reasoned that the injury to Jonathan, a 'minor physical wound,' was not a 'horrendous event' from which one could reasonably expect a person in her position to suffer 'serious emotional distress.' The court distinguished her anguish, which it characterized as the normal distress any mother would feel, from the 'severe and debilitating' distress required by the statute, such as neuroses or psychoses. Therefore, her emotional distress was not legally compensable.
Dissenting in part - Amy, Judge
No. The partial dissent agrees with the majority's conclusion that Mrs. Guillot cannot recover for mental anguish and also agrees with the allocation of fault. However, the dissent disagrees with the affirmation of the $45,000 general damage award to Jonathan Guillot. Judge Amy found the award excessive given the 'limited nature of the injury' and would have reduced the award to the highest point reasonably within the trial court's discretion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high threshold for bystander recovery claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Louisiana. By strictly interpreting Louisiana Civil Code article 2315.6, the court establishes that the underlying injury-causing event must be 'horrendous' and the resulting emotional distress must be 'severe and debilitating,' not merely the understandable anguish any person would feel seeing a loved one injured. This decision serves as a limiting principle, preventing the expansion of bystander liability to cases involving minor or moderate injuries and reinforcing that recovery is reserved for exceptional circumstances involving catastrophic harm and profound psychological trauma.
Unlock the full brief for Guillot v. Doe