Richardson v. ASI Lloyd's
2016 La. App. LEXIS 1749, 206 So. 3d 349 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to act as a reasonable person in managing their property is not breached by entrusting a children's pool party to a non-swimming adult, provided other reasonable safety measures are in place, such as the known presence of other capable swimmers and the provision of adequate safety equipment.
Facts:
- Homeowner Cash Clay allowed his live-in girlfriend, Kinsha Walton, to host a children's birthday party at his residence, which had a swimming pool.
- Clay was aware that Walton could not swim.
- Clay knew that Walton's two adult children, Derek and Kimberly, were swimmers and were typically present to help supervise when Walton hosted pool parties.
- Clay provided numerous life vests for both children and adults and instructed Walton not to allow anyone in the pool without a life vest.
- During the party, 12-year-old Jamarcus Hilliard, who could not swim, attended.
- Walton put a life vest on Jamarcus before he entered the pool.
- At some point after getting out of the pool, Jamarcus took off his life vest and re-entered the water without being seen.
- Jamarcus was later found at the bottom of the deep end of the pool and subsequently pronounced dead.
Procedural Posture:
- James Richardson (Plaintiff) filed a petition for damages against Cash Clay and his insurer, ASI Lloyds (Defendants), in the district court, which is the trial court.
- The trial court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Richardson's claims.
- Richardson, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Clay's potential breach of duty, and remanded the case to the trial court.
- A bench trial was held in the district court.
- The trial court rendered a final judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding Richardson failed to prove Clay was negligent.
- Richardson, as appellant, appealed the trial court's final judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second 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 homeowner breach his duty of reasonable care by allowing his non-swimming girlfriend to host a children's pool party in his absence, when he knows her two adult, swimming children will also be present and provides sufficient life vests for the children?
Opinions:
Majority - Pitman, J.
No. A homeowner does not breach his duty of reasonable care under these circumstances. The landowner's duty is to act as a reasonable person, and Clay's conduct met this standard based on his knowledge at the time he entrusted the pool to Walton. Clay's actions were reasonable because he knew Walton's two adult children who could swim would be present, he provided adequate life vests, and he instructed that they be worn. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove causation—that 'but for' Walton not being a swimmer, the drowning would not have occurred. Deferring to the trial court's factual findings under the 'manifest error' standard of review, the court concluded the judgment for the homeowner was not clearly wrong, as there were two permissible views of the evidence.
Dissenting - Brown, C.J.
Yes. A homeowner does breach his duty of reasonable care under these circumstances. Clay's actions were unreasonable because he entrusted the safety of young children to his girlfriend, who could not swim and had pending drug charges, and her two adult children, who were not competent lifeguards. Given that it was an impromptu party for young neighborhood children, some of whose parents were not notified, it was unreasonable for Clay not to ensure that adults capable of proper supervision would be present.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the standard for landowner liability is reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances, not a strict liability standard. It establishes that a single potential weakness in supervision, such as a primary supervisor's inability to swim, can be offset by other precautionary measures like the presence of other capable individuals and providing safety equipment. The case also underscores the high deference appellate courts give to trial court fact-finding under the 'manifest error' standard, making the initial trial's credibility determinations critically important. Future cases involving premises liability will likely analyze the combination of safety measures taken, rather than focusing on a single point of failure.
