Pitre v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation
234 So. 2d 847 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An operator's failure to take precautions against a foreseeable risk of injury does not constitute negligence unless the risk is also unreasonable. A risk is unreasonable if the magnitude and probability of the foreseeable harm outweigh the social utility of the conduct creating the risk.
Facts:
- The Thibodaux Volunteer Fire Department, a non-profit association, hosted its annual fundraising Fireman's Fair on public school grounds.
- The fair featured a baseball concession stand where patrons paid to throw baseballs at canvas targets to win prizes.
- The stand had a counter for patrons to throw from but had no ropes, barriers, or designated 'pitcher's box' to separate or isolate the thrower from other patrons and spectators.
- Two members of the Fire Department operated the concession from inside the counter and did not supervise the patrons on the throwing side.
- At approximately 8:00 P.M., David LeBouef, a seventeen-year-old patron, was participating in the game.
- While in the act of 'winding up' to pitch a baseball overhand, LeBouef inadvertently drew his hand backward and struck nine-and-a-half-year-old Anthony Pitre in the head.
- Anthony Pitre subsequently died from the injuries sustained.
- Anthony's father, Merville N. Pitre, was a member of the Thibodaux Volunteer Fire Department that operated the fair.
Procedural Posture:
- Merville N. Pitre and his wife sued Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. and Maryland Casualty Company, the insurers for the Thibodaux Fireman's Fair, in a Louisiana trial court for damages related to the death of their son.
- The defendant insurers filed a third-party claim against David LeBouef, the patron who struck the decedent.
- The trial court found in favor of the Pitres and awarded them damages.
- The trial court also dismissed the defendants' third-party demand against LeBouef.
- The defendant insurers, Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd. and Maryland Casualty Company, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First 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 the operator of a fundraising fair concession have a legal duty to protect spectators from the risk of being struck by a patron's wind-up motion while pitching a baseball, when such a risk, though foreseeable, is not unreasonable?
Opinions:
Majority - Landry, Judge
No. The operator of the fair concession did not breach a duty of care because while the risk of injury was foreseeable, it was not unreasonable. Negligence requires that a risk be both foreseeable and unreasonable. The court determines unreasonableness by balancing the magnitude and probability of harm against the utility or social value of the conduct. Here, the danger of being near someone throwing a baseball was open and obvious, and the probability of this specific type of accident occurring was very low. This low probability of harm was outweighed by the high social utility of the non-profit's fundraising fair for a vital public service. The operators followed industry custom for such concessions, which primarily focused on preventing injuries from ricocheting balls, not from a pitcher's wind-up. Therefore, the Fire Department did not act negligently.
Analysis:
This case refines the negligence standard by emphasizing that foreseeability of harm alone is insufficient to establish a breach of duty. The court's application of a risk-utility balancing test establishes that a defendant's conduct is only negligent if the risk created is unreasonable in light of its social value. This precedent is significant for non-profit and community organizations, suggesting they may be held to a standard that considers the social benefit of their activities when evaluating liability. Future cases involving injuries at community or charitable events will likely apply this balancing test, weighing the probability of harm against the social good of the enterprise.
Unlock the full brief for Pitre v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation