Loescher v. Parr
324 So. 2d 441 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317, the owner or guardian of a thing is held to a standard of strict liability for damage caused by a defect or vice in that thing. Liability arises from the legal relationship to the defective thing and does not require a showing of personal negligence or knowledge of the defect.
Facts:
- George Parr owned a residential lot containing a sixty-foot magnolia tree.
- The tree was located six feet from Parr's home and on the property line adjacent to an apartment complex.
- Daniel F. Loescher, Sr. had moved into the neighboring apartment complex three weeks prior to the incident.
- The magnolia tree was internally 90% rotted and hollow, but this diseased condition was not apparent from an external inspection.
- At 3:00 a.m., during a period of windy weather that was common for the area, the tree fell across the property line.
- The falling tree landed on and demolished Loescher's Cadillac, which was parked in the apartment's lot.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel F. Loescher, Sr. sued George Parr and his insurer, State Farm, in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- The district court dismissed Loescher's suit.
- Loescher, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
- The court of appeal affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Parr, the appellee.
- Loescher, as relator, petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 2317 impose liability on a property owner for damages caused by a tree on his property that falls due to an internal, non-apparent disease, even in the absence of any negligence on the owner's part?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Tate
Yes. A property owner is liable for damages caused by a defective thing in his custody, even without personal negligence. Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317 establishes a basis for legal fault separate from negligence, holding the guardian of a thing responsible for the risks it creates. The court reasoned that Article 2317 is not merely an introductory clause but an independent source of liability, consistent with the code's other articles imposing strict liability on parents (Art. 2318), animal owners (Art. 2321), and building owners (Art. 2322). To establish liability, the plaintiff must prove that the thing was in the defendant's custody, it had a defect or vice, and the damage was caused by that defect. The burden then shifts to the owner to show the harm was caused by the victim's fault, a third party's fault, or an irresistible force. Here, the wind was not an unforeseeable 'irresistible force,' so Parr, as the guardian of the defective tree, is liable.
Dissenting - Justice Marcus
No. Liability for a fallen tree should be based on traditional negligence principles under Articles 2315 and 2316, not strict liability. Article 2317 was intended by its redactors to be a transitional article that merely introduces the specific categories of strict liability enumerated in the subsequent articles (e.g., animals, buildings). The phrase 'with the following modifications' limits the general principle to those specific instances. Since trees are not among the things specifically listed for strict liability, the plaintiff must prove the owner was at fault. Because the lower courts found Parr was not negligent and could not have known of the tree's internal rot, he should not be held liable.
Analysis:
This landmark decision significantly expanded tort liability in Louisiana by interpreting Civil Code Article 2317 as an independent basis for strict liability for all things in a person's custody, not just those specifically enumerated in other articles. It shifts the focus from the defendant's conduct (negligence) to the condition of the thing itself, placing the burden of loss on the owner who benefits from or controls the risk-creating object. This ruling makes it substantially easier for plaintiffs to recover for damages caused by defective property, as they no longer need to prove the owner knew or should have known of the defect. It has had a profound and lasting impact on Louisiana tort law, particularly in premises liability cases.
Unlock the full brief for Loescher v. Parr