Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc.
1972 La. LEXIS 5570, 256 So. 2d 620, 260 La. 542 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a defendant's conduct to be considered actionable negligence, the defendant must have breached a legal duty imposed to protect against the particular risk of harm that the plaintiff encountered. Foreseeability alone is insufficient to establish this duty-risk relationship; the harm must fall within the scope of protection of the legal rule allegedly violated.
Facts:
- Lundin & Associates, Inc. (Lundin), a contractor, was hired by Mrs. Rosemary Delouise to repair hurricane damage to her home.
- After completing the repairs, Lundin left a metal ladder standing in an upright position against the side of the Delouise house.
- A few days after the work was completed, an unknown third party moved the ladder and laid it flat in the yard.
- Celeste Hill, an employee of Mrs. Delouise, was aware of the ladder's position lying on the ground.
- While Hill was in the yard hanging laundry, she saw the young Delouise child running towards the ladder.
- Hill hurried toward the child to prevent him from falling over the ladder.
- In the process of rushing to the child, Hill tripped over the ladder, fell, and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Celeste Hill (plaintiff) sued her employer, Mrs. Delouise, and the contractor, Lundin & Associates, Inc. (defendants), in a Louisiana trial court for negligence.
- The trial judge found Mrs. Delouise was not negligent and held that Hill's own contributory negligence barred her from recovering damages from Lundin.
- Hill (appellant) appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Mrs. Delouise but reversed the judgment for Lundin, finding Lundin was negligent and that Hill's contributory negligence was excused.
- Lundin (applicant) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of Louisiana 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 a contractor's duty of care encompass the risk that a person will be injured by tripping over a ladder that the contractor left at a worksite, after an unknown third party moved the ladder from an upright position against a house to a position lying flat on the ground?
Opinions:
Majority - Barham, J.
No. A defendant's conduct does not constitute actionable negligence unless the specific risk that caused the plaintiff's harm was within the scope of the legal duty the defendant owed. Here, any duty Lundin had was related to the risk of leaving a ladder leaning against a house, such as it falling. That duty does not encompass the separate risk of someone tripping over the ladder after a third party moved it and laid it on the ground. The court reasoned that liability requires more than just a cause-in-fact connection; it requires an analysis of whether the legal rule breached was designed to protect against the particular risk encountered. The court found that Lundin could not have reasonably anticipated that a third party would move the ladder and place it in a position to create this specific tripping hazard. Therefore, the risk that materialized was not within the scope of any duty Lundin owed to Hill.
Analysis:
This case is a cornerstone of Louisiana's duty-risk analysis in tort law, shifting the focus from the traditional, often confusing, concept of proximate cause. The decision establishes that foreseeability is not the sole determinant of duty. Instead, courts must make a policy determination about the scope of protection a legal rule is intended to afford. This approach requires analyzing whether the specific harm suffered by the plaintiff is the type of harm the defendant's duty was meant to prevent, thereby limiting liability for attenuated or unforeseeable consequences of a defendant's conduct.
