Webre v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation Hospital
759 So. 2d 146, 99 La.App. 5 Cir. 697, 2000 La. App. LEXIS 705 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Civil Code article 2322, an owner of a building is liable for damages caused by a defect only upon a showing that the owner knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the defect. The mere occurrence of an injury from a defect is insufficient to establish liability without proof of the owner's actual or constructive knowledge.
Facts:
- In February 1997, Donna Webre was diagnosed with an incurable, malignant brain tumor and underwent surgery at Ochsner Foundation Hospital.
- On March 14, 1997, Mrs. Webre's condition worsened, and she suffered a grand mal seizure, leading to her readmission to Ochsner.
- On the evening of March 17, Mrs. Webre was noted to be awake, alert, and coherent.
- On March 18, 1997, while an Ochsner employee was transporting Mrs. Webre in an elevator, a metal grate fell from the ceiling and struck her on the head.
- Following the incident, Mrs. Webre's family observed a bruise on her head, and she became unresponsive.
- Mrs. Webre's neurosurgeon, Dr. Edward Coleman, testified that the falling grate incident did not cause, contribute to, or accelerate the worsening of her condition or her eventual death.
- Mrs. Webre's health continued to decline, and she passed away on June 13, 1997.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Webre sued Ochsner Foundation Hospital for negligence in a Louisiana trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found for the plaintiff, Webre, and awarded $12,000 in damages.
- The defendant, Ochsner Foundation Hospital, appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
- The plaintiff, Robert Webre, filed an answer to the appeal.
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 Civil Code article 2322, is a building owner liable for injuries caused by a defect when the plaintiff presents no evidence that the owner knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the defect?
Opinions:
Majority - Gothard, J.
No. A building owner is not liable for injuries caused by a defect unless the plaintiff meets their burden of proof by showing the owner knew or should have known of the defect. The Louisiana Civil Code article 2322 changed the law from strict liability to a negligence standard, which requires proof of the owner's knowledge. In this case, the plaintiff presented evidence concerning the causation and extent of damages but failed to introduce any evidence showing that Ochsner knew or should have known about the loose elevator grate. Because the plaintiff failed to prove this essential element of the claim, the trial court's finding of liability must be reversed.
Dissenting - Chehardy, J.
Yes. The hospital should be held liable because the unique circumstances of this case did not require a showing of knowledge. Mrs. Webre was a vulnerable patient under the sole care, custody, and control of Ochsner. This situation is analogous to that of a common carrier, which owes its passengers the highest degree of care. In common carrier cases, proof of injury to a passenger shifts the burden to the carrier to prove it was not negligent. The same burden-shifting framework should have applied here, requiring Ochsner to show it exercised reasonable care, which it failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the shift in Louisiana premises liability law from strict liability to a negligence standard, as mandated by the amended Civil Code article 2322. It clarifies that plaintiffs bear the full burden of proving the property owner's actual or constructive knowledge of a defect and cannot rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or the mere fact of the accident to establish a prima facie case. The majority's refusal to adopt the dissent's common carrier analogy for hospitals reinforces a strict interpretation of the statute, making it more challenging for plaintiffs to succeed in premises liability claims without direct or circumstantial evidence of the owner's prior knowledge of the hazardous condition.
