Loescher v. Parr - 324 So. 2d 441 (La. 1975)

Rule:

When harm results from the conduct or defect of a person or thing which creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible under the Louisiana Civil Code articles for the supervision, care, or guardianship of the person or thing may be held liable for the damage thus caused, despite the fact that no personal negligent act or inattention on the former's part is proved. The liability arises from his legal relationship to the person or thing whose conduct or defect creates an unreasonable risk of injuries to others. The fault of the person thus liable is based upon his failure to prevent the person or thing for whom he is responsible from causing such unreasonable risk of injury to others. Thus, the person to whom society allots the supervision, care, or guardianship (custody) of the risk-creating person or thing bears the loss resulting from creation of the risk, rather than some innocent third person harmed as a consequence of his failure to prevent the risk. His fault rests upon his failure to prevent the risk-creating harm and upon his obligation to guard against the condition or activity (by the person or thing for which he is responsible) which creates the unreasonable risk of harm to others. 

Facts:

The plaintiff Loescher's automobile was demolished when a tree from a neighboring lot fell across it. He sues Parr, the owner of the neighboring lot, and Parr's homeowner's liability insurer (State Farm). The court of appeal affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit, holding that no negligence on Parr's part is proven.

Issue:

Were Parr and State Farm liable to Loescher?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed and held that the tree was a thing under La. Civ. Code (code). The court held that when harm resulted from the conduct or defect of a thing that created an unreasonable risk of harm to others, the person legally responsible under the code's articles for the supervision, care, or guardianship of the thing might be held liable for the damage thus caused, despite the fact that no personally negligent act or inattention on the former's part was proved. The liability arose from his legal relationship to the thing whose defect created an unreasonable risk of injuries to others. The court held that Parr was liable for his legal fault in maintaining the defective tree and in preventing it from causing injury. Parr claimed that the high wind was an intervening force; the court held that he was not exculpated from liability, because the wind was not a fortuitous event under the code.