Perrin v. Randy Tupper Homes
21 So. 3d 474, 8 La.App. 3 Cir. 1418, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 1758 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana's criminal trespass statute, a person who enters an un-barricaded, un-posted property for a legitimate business purpose, such as a prospective homebuyer viewing a house under construction, is not a trespasser. The statute places the burden on the property owner to forbid entry, and without such prohibition, the owner is not entitled to statutory immunity from liability for injuries to such persons.
Facts:
- Hunter Perrin and Mary J. Perrin were looking for a home to buy in the Graywood Subdivision.
- On a Sunday afternoon, they stopped to look at a townhouse under construction by Randy Tupper Homes that appeared near completion.
- The property had no signs, warning tape, or barricades prohibiting entry.
- A sign advertising "Tupper Homes" with contact information was posted on the property.
- A makeshift walkway made of wooden pallets was placed on the damp ground leading from the street to the house.
- Mary Perrin used the pallet walkway to approach the house.
- While walking on the pallets, she fell and sustained an injury to her right shoulder.
Procedural Posture:
- Hunter and Mary Perrin (Plaintiffs) sued Randy Tupper Homes and its insurer (Defendants) in a Louisiana trial court for negligence.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they were immune from suit because the Perrins were criminal trespassers under state law.
- The trial court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Plaintiffs' case.
- The Perrins, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, 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:
Under Louisiana Revised Statute 14:63, are prospective homebuyers who enter an un-barricaded construction site in a developing subdivision considered criminal trespassers, thereby triggering the property owner's immunity from tort liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooks, J.
No. Prospective homebuyers who enter an un-barricaded construction site for the legitimate purpose of viewing the property are not criminal trespassers, and thus the builder is not immune from liability. The Louisiana trespass statute, La.R.S. 14:63(F)(3), explicitly provides an exception for any person with a 'legitimate reason for making a delivery, conducting business or communicating with the owner.' The Perrins, as potential buyers attracted by development in the area and a sign for the builder, fall squarely within this exception. The statute places the affirmative burden on the property owner to forbid entry, either orally or in writing. Because the defendants failed to post any warnings or barricades, the Perrins were permitted to enter for a legitimate reason, and the trial court erred in applying the trespasser immunity provision.
Dissenting - Amy, J.
Yes. The Perrins were trespassers because they lacked the required authorization to enter the property, and the builder should be immune from liability. The controlling provision is La.R.S. 14:63(A), which prohibits entry onto private property without 'express, legal, or implied authorization.' The mere fact that a home is under construction in a developing neighborhood does not create implied authorization for any member of the public to enter the private lot. Because the Perrins entered without authorization and there was no evidence of intentional acts or gross negligence by the builder, the immunity provided by La.R.S. 14:63(H) applies, and the trial court's grant of summary judgment was correct.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the 'legitimate reason' exception to Louisiana's criminal trespass statute, particularly for real estate developers and contractors. It establishes that the passive marketing of properties in a subdivision can create a condition where prospective buyers are not considered trespassers, shifting the legal risk. The ruling effectively requires developers who wish to claim statutory immunity from liability to take affirmative steps, such as posting 'no trespassing' signs or erecting barriers, to explicitly forbid public entry onto construction sites. This precedent impacts premises liability law in Louisiana by narrowing the applicability of trespasser status for individuals who might reasonably be considered business invitees, even before direct contact with the owner is made.
