Brady v. State - 525 So. 2d 102 (La. Ct. App. 1988)

Rule:

In Louisiana, in suits such in which recovery is founded on allegations of negligence, the duty-risk analysis is utilized. The Louisiana Supreme Court has restated the elements of the duty-risk analysis. The elements are: (1) Was the defendant's conduct a cause in fact of the plaintiff's injury; (2) did the defendant owe the plaintiff a legal duty which encompassed the particular risk of harm to which the plaintiff was exposed; (3) did the defendant breach its legal duty; and (4) did the plaintiff sustain any damage?

Facts:

The Pinecrest School sponsored a street dance for its residents. Plaintiff Dora Brady, a clerk-typist-II at Pinecrest, chose to participate in the festivities. However, plaintiff was injured when a moderately mentally handicapped resident experiencing seizure fell on top of her. Plaintiff, together with Stephen Brady, commenced the present action to recover the damages they sustained as the result of an injury Dora Brady suffered. The Bradys named as the defendant, the State of Louisiana, in particular, the Department of Health and Human Resources, the state agency responsible for the Pinecrest School. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the State, dismissing the Bradys' suit at their cost. The court held that the State had not breached any duty imposed for the benefit of the Bradys and that it was, therefore, not negligent in its supervision of the street dance or the residents. On appeal, the Bradys contended that the trial court erred in concluding that the State was not negligent. According to the Bradys, the law imposed on the State the duty of supervising the Pinecrest residents in a manner that would prevent them from injuring off-duty employees attending the street dance. 

Issue:

Did the law impose on the State the duty of supervising the Pinecrest residents in a manner that would prevent them from injuring off-duty employees attending the street dance? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the State did not owe Dora Brady a duty to protect her from being unexpectedly knocked to the ground by a properly supervised moderately mentally handicapped resident experiencing a seizure, whose history of seizures revealed that they were infrequent and unpredictable. Dora Brady was knocked down by another resident as the result of an involuntary seizure that could not have been predicted. No amount of supervision could have prevented the injury. The State, in permitting a resident to attend a street dance sponsored for the benefit of the school residents, did not create an unreasonable risk of harm. There was no application of strict liability warranted.