SIDNEY SMITH v. DR DWIGHT MCKENNA IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE NEW ORLEANS CORONER ORLEANS PARISH CORONER OFFICE OR NEW ORLEANS CORONER (2026)

Defendant, Dr. Dwight McKenna, in his capacity as the Coroner for the City of New Orleans (“Coroner's Officer”), appeals the July 11, 2025 judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, Sidney Smith (“Mr. Smith”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 1, 2023, Mr. Smith filed a Petition for Damages alleging gross negligence/intentional infliction of emotional distress and mental anguish due to the Coroner's Office's failure to: 1) properly and timely identify the body of his son, Justin; 2) timely inform him of its possession of Justin's body; 3) failure to properly refrigerate Justin's body; and 4) properly train its staff.

The Coroner's Office filed a Third-Party Demand against the City of New Orleans, Anne Kirkpatrick, in her official capacity as Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department (“NOPD”), and certain members of the New Orleans City Counsel. Therein, the Coroner's Office alleged that the City of New Orleans failed to properly fund the office, which experienced significant air conditioning problems, directly impacting their ability to maintain appropriate temperature for the storage of bodies. The Coroner's Office further alleged that the failure to provide the NOPD with proper fingerprinting equipment caused the delay in identifying Justin.

The matter proceeded to trial on June 23, 2025. Testimony was given by Mr. Smith; Brian Lapeyrolerie (“Mr. Lapeyrolerie”), the Coroner's Office Chief Investigator; NOPD Detective David Trahan (“Det. Trahan”); Janet Bradley, M.D. (“Dr. Bradley”), Justin's psychiatrist; and Sterling Higgins (“Mr. Higgins”), Operations Manager for the City of New Orleans.

Testimony of Mr. Smith

Mr. Smith testified that Justin, age forty-two, had a severe mental illness that was well-controlled with medication. Justin lived and worked with Mr. Smith, who owned a haunted history tour company in the French Quarter. Mr. Smith described their relationship as inseparable. Justin was his only child.

In connection with an inpatient treatment plan arranged by Dr. Bradley, Justin appeared before Civil District Court Judge Kern Reese on June 15, 2023. After the court appearance, Justin argued with Mr. Smith, and he stormed off. When Justin did not return home the next day, Mr. Smith reported him missing and went to the Coroner's Office to obtain an Order for Protective Custody (“OPC”). Mr. Smith testified that he was handed a sealed envelope and was told to bring the OPC to the NOPD, “which is exactly what you have to do with a mentally ill person.” He stated that he fully believed the OPC was in effect. Mr. Smith further stated that he learned for the first time at trial (through Mr. Lapeyrolerie's testimony) that the Coroner's Office did not issue the OPC.

After obtaining the OPC, Justin was spotted in the French Quarter. Mr. Smith, accompanied by a police officer, tried to approach Justin, but he ran away. Mr. Smith continued to search for Justin. On June 18, 2023, unbeknownst to Mr. Smith, Justin collapsed on Decatur Street in the French Quarter and was transported to University Medical Center. He died shortly after his arrival. There was no identification on Justin's body. The Coroner's Office performed the autopsy on June 19, 2023.

On June 20, 2023, unaware of Justin's death, Mr. Smith returned to the Coroner's Office to obtain a second OPC, as the first one would have expired after seventy-two hours. On that occasion, Mr. Smith was told that the Coroner's Office could not issue the OPC until he knew Justin's whereabouts. Mr. Smith testified that prior to Dr. McKenna's tenure as Coroner, he never had a problem getting additional OPC's if Justin was not located on the first one. Unbeknownst to Mr. Smith, Justin's body was already at the Coroner's Office while he was present. Mr. Smith testified that he could not understand why he was not informed that there were unidentified male bodies in the morgue. Moreover, Mr. Smith confirmed that at the time, the Coroner's Office had a complete description of Justin from the first OPC.

Mr. Smith actively continued to look for Justin, believing that his son was still alive, as Justin's credit cards were still being used. He was assisted in his search by Dr. Bradley and a private investigator.

On June 26, 2023, Mr. Smith filed a second missing persons report with the NOPD. On July 12, 2023, Dr. Bradley informed him that there were two unidentified male bodies at the Coroner's Office. Mr. Smith returned to the Coroner's Office that day with photographs of Justin, depicting Justin's tattoos. He testified that after giving the photographs to Inspector Bell, she responded (very callously in his opinion), “Yeah, we got ‘em.” Mr. Smith explained, “And that's when my world ended that day.” The following day, the NOPD made a positive fingerprint identification of Justin.

Mr. Smith testified that he was not allowed to see Justin's body because there was too much decomposition. He stated that this was later confirmed by the funeral home. Against Justin's wishes, Mr. Smith had no choice but to have is son cremated.

Testimony of Dr. Bradley

Dr. Bradley testified that she was Justin's psychiatrist for nearly seven years. She explained that Justin had significant mental illness but that he was doing really well. Dr. Bradley considered him to be a really nice and wonderful person. She also stated that he was well cared for by Mr. Smith.

When Justin ran away following his court appearance, Dr. Bradley and her team began searching for him. Dr. Bradley understood that Mr. Smith's initial missing persons report had a detailed description of Justin. Moreover, she knew that Justin had been arrested before, so there would be a record of him. Dr. Bradley explained that in connection with her search for Justin, she called the Coroner's Office to inquire if they had any unidentified bodies meeting Justin's description. She advised Mr. Smith to go to the office with a photograph of Justin.

Testimony of Mr. Lapeyrolerie

Mr. Lapeyrolerie worked as Chief Investigator for the Coroner's Office for eleven years, in charge of day to day operations. Five investigators worked under him. He explained that the investigators receive only on-the-job training. He testified that there are no written protocols or policies as it relates to body identification and notification of next of kin. Mr. Lapeyrolerie agreed that it would be better to have documented protocols rather than word-of-mouth. Mr. Lapeyrolerie described the investigators’ responsibilities as “using circumstantial information, scars, marks, tattoos, fingerprinting, DNA potentially, dental examination if needed. Gather information from the scene or the reporting facility.” He agreed that it is important to have follow-up.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie testified that Justin's autopsy was performed on June 19, 2023. Det. Trahan took Justin's fingerprints on June 21, 2023. At that time, Det. Trahan informed him that the NOPD latent print equipment was not currently in operation due to an air conditioning outage at NOPD headquarters. Mr. Lapeyrolerie acknowledged that between the taking of the fingerprints on June 21, 2023, and July 12, 2023, when Mr. Smith returned with photographs of Justin, there was nothing documented of anything being done to identify the body.¹ The Coroner's Office received an email from the NOPD on July 13, 2023, confirming Justin's identification through his fingerprints.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie testified that the Coroner's Office has used dental and DNA records in the past but it was not needed in Justin's case because they were waiting on the fingerprint results from the NOPD. He assumed that the issue with the NOPD's equipment would be resolved quickly. Mr. Lapeyrolerie explained that without fingerprint results, the Coroner's Office did not have a “Plan B” because they never experienced the situation before where the NOPD could not run fingerprints.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie acknowledged that the Coroner's Office is not required to only use the NOPD to run fingerprints. He further stated that aside from getting the NOPD to fingerprint a body, there are other free resources available to his office such as the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (“NamUS”), and the Louisiana State Police Automated Fingerprint Identification System (“AFIS”). None were used to help identify Justin's body. He further explained that the Coroner's Office does not retain a copy of fingerprints in its own records.

Regarding the first OPC obtained by Mr. Smith two days before the Coroner's Office took possession of Justin's body, Mr. Lapeyrolerie acknowledged that it mentioned Justin's mental health issues and suicidal ideations. He stated that this information would not have prompted the Coroner's Office to correlate that with an unidentified body that comes into the morgue, reasoning that when a family member comes in for an OPC, we just assume the person is still alive.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie explained that the OPC was unsigned by Mr. Smith. He presumed it was never issued because Mr. Smith could not provide a location for Justin. The Coroner's Office had no documentation that anyone told Mr. Smith that the OPC would not be issued. He confirmed that the OPC was recorded in the Coroner's Office mental health log (“MH log”). The OPC included a physical description of Justin.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie confirmed receiving an email from Mark Bone (“Mr. Bone”) with the Jefferson Parish Coroner's Office on July 13, 2023, stating that a friend of his who represents Mr. Smith asked him to inquire about the death of Justin. Mr. Lapeyrolerie responded on July17, 2023 telling Mr. Bone that “[l]ots of people have been calling on behalf of the family. We have spoken with the father last week. I'm not sure why others are calling.” Mr. Lapeyrolerie had no recollection of the calls made on behalf of the family, and he confirmed that the calls were not documented in the Coroner's Office Communication Log. He explained that only pertinent calls are documented. However, Mr. Lapeyrolerie testified that calls from Mr. Smith (which he considered to be important) were not documented.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie testified that there had been problems with the coolers in the Coroner's Office going out and also keeping the desired temperatures. He explained that he would personally make a phone call to Mr. Higgins at the New Orleans Property Management Department to report such a problem. These calls were not documented.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie confirmed that in an email to Mr. Higgins on August 24, 2023, he reported that the Coroner's Office now had a “second cooler” out. He could not explain why there were no prior emails relative to the first cooler. Mr. Lapeyrolerie acknowledged that there were problems with the coolers prior to August of 2023, and that a cooler was out during the period of time that the Coroner's Office stored Justin's body. He testified, however, that “[i]f Justin's body was in a malfunctioning cooler, he would have been moved out immediately along with the others.”

Testimony of Det. Trahan

Det Trahan was assigned to the Coroner's Office as liaison for homicides and all death investigations since 1990. In connection with his duties, Det. Trahan takes all fingerprints at the Coroner's Office. He recalled the air conditioning/electricity problems that occurred in June of 2023, which caused the latent print examiner to be unable to process fingerprints. Det. Trahan testified that he never heard of the fingerprint equipment being shut down in his fifty years on the force.

Det. Trahan stated that there was no time table for resolution of the problem with the fingerprint equipment. He notified Mr. Lapeyrolerie but he did not recall if Mr. Lapeyrolerie followed up with him. He considered Mr. Lapeyrolerie to be thorough in his job. Det. Trahan was not aware if the NOPD utilizes other jurisdictions to assist with fingerprinting.

Testimony of Mr. Higgins

Mr. Higgins testified that he is in charge of the engineering department for the City of New of Orleans, supervising repairs and maintenance of city buildings, including the Coroner's Office. He stated that the Coroner's Office does not send a work order, they just call. He knows to give them immediate service for air conditioning and refrigeration. Mr. Higgins stated that he did not learn of the air conditioning and refrigeration issues as it relates to Justin's case until 2025.

On July 11, 2025, judgment was rendered in favor of Mr. Smith and against the Coroner's Office in the amount of $67,000.00, together with interest and costs of the proceedings. The Coroner's Office's Third-Party Demand against the NOPD and the City of New Orleans was dismissed with prejudice.²

In Reasons for Judgment, the trial court stated, in part, as follows:

The inaction of the Coroner's Office in identifying Justin's body resulted in possession of his body for an additional twenty-five (25) days in conditions unable to properly maintain and store said body. This inaction further deprived Mr. Smith from a last viewing of his son due to the decomposition that occurred while his body was in the Coroner's Office's possession. The Coroner's Office's total and complete absence of written protocols or procedures to prevent these types of issues and inaction from occurring with a human body and someone's loved one is outrageous and reckless, which is the fundamental failure of the Coroner's Office in this matter. Accordingly, immunity from liability under La R.S. 13:5713(I)(1) does not apply.

The Coroner's Office's failure to use the simple, free, and readily available methods to identify Justin, which were known by their own Chief Investigating Officer, amounts to outrageous and reckless behavior. It is reasonable to believe that the outrageous and reckless (in)action of the Coroner's Office caused profound and ongoing emotional suffering to a devoted parent like Mr. Smith, who was left searching for his child for twenty-five (25) days.

This timely appeal followed.³

DISCUSSION

The Coroner's Office asserts that the trial court erred by: 1) excluding proffered emails showing that the Coroner's Office was in the process of pursuing additional means of identifying Justin's body; and 2) concluding that the actions of the Coroner's Office were outrageous and reckless and, thus, subject to liability under La. R.S. 13:5713. Alternatively, it is asserted that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Mr. Smith $67,500.00 in general damages.

Assignment of Error No. 1: The trial court erred by excluding the proffered emails.

The Coroner's Office contends that it made reasonable attempts to identify Justin's body and sought to introduce two emails between Mr. Lapeyrolerie and Kevin Bell with the NOPD to demonstrate that they were in the process of pursuing additional means of making the identification. Counsel for Mr. Smith objected, arguing that the emails were not disclosed during discovery and were not listed as exhibits in accordance with the joint pre-trial order. The trial court sustained the objection noting that the emails were not listed in the pre-trial order and were not included in the bench book submitted for trial. The Coroner's Office proffered the emails.

The first proffered email (Exhibit D-2), reflects that on July 8, 2023, Mr. Lapeyrolerie asked Mark Bell (“Mr. Bell”), with the NOPD, if they “thought about reaching out to [Jefferson Parish] to run the prints.” In the second proffered email (Exhibit D-3), Mr. Bell replied on July 10, 2023, that he was “working on a plan to go over to [Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office] this week.”

In defending the proffer, counsel for the Coroner's Office explained that Mr. Lapeyrolerie did not initially discover the emails when he searched because the subject line of the emails is titled “Info.” It does not reference Justin Smith by name. Counsel further explained that after he became involved in this case less than two weeks prior to trial, he asked Mr. Lapeyrolerie to do a search of his emails from the applicable time period, not by name. In that search, the emails with Mr. Bell were discovered. Mr. Lapeyrolerie acknowledged that he did not produce the emails during discovery, stating that he discovered the emails one week before the trial when he was asked by counsel to search his email records during the applicable time period.

On appeal, the Coroner's Office argues that there was good cause for failing to produce the two emails considering the medical emergency and death of lead counsel, Charles R. Jones (“Judge Jones”) in the days that the pre-trial order was drafted. The Coroner's Office maintains that had the emails been admitted, it is very likely that the trial court would have reached a different conclusion regarding their conduct.

Mr. Smith counters that irrespective of the unfortunate medical emergency and death of Judge Jones, co-counsel for the Coroner's Office has been enrolled in this matter for more than fifteen months prior to trial. Thus, he maintains that there was sufficient time to discover and produce the emails in question. Mr. Smith further stresses that the late production of the evidence would have prejudiced Mr. Smith in preparing his case for trial. We agree.

La. C.C.P. art. 1551 provides the trial court with great discretion in implementing pretrial orders and ensuring that the items of the pretrial order are enforced.⁴ It is well established that “the theory inherent in pre-trial civil procedure is to avoid surprise and to permit an orderly disposition of the case.” Robertson v. Lafayette Ins. Co. 2011-0975, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/8/12), 85 So.3d 186, 189 (citing Brooks v. Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, 2002-2246, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/30/03), 847 So.2d 639, 643).

As reiterated in Cobena v. Ace American Ins. Co., 1012-0630, p 11 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/3/22), 347 So.3d 1117, 1125-26:

A party has a right to expect compliance with the pre-trial order by the opposing party, and prepare for trial accordingly. When a party's attorney fails to obey a pre-trial order, the court, sua sponte or on the motion of a party, may make such orders as are just, including an order prohibiting the disobedient party from introducing designated matters into evidence. Id. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision whether to admit or exclude evidence upon objection on the grounds of failure to abide by the pre-trial order will be upheld.

It is also well established that “[w]hile the trial judge has great discretion in deciding whether to receive or refuse testimony objected to on the grounds of failure to abide by the pre-trial order, any doubt is resolved in favor of receiving the information.” Williams v. Alexander, 2024-0492, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/17/25), 426 So.3d 55, 64 (citing Perniciaro v. Hamad, 2020-0062, p. 27 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/16/20), 309 So.3d 813, 833; Moonan v. Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 2016-0113, p. 5 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/22/16), 202 So.3d 529, 533).

Considering the Coroner's Office's explanation for its failure to timely discover and produce the emails in question, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing the evidence. The Coroner's Office has not presented a compelling reason why the emails were not discovered during the discovery process. However, even considering the proffered evidence, we find that the emails only reflect that the Coroner's Office made one inquiry to the NOPD as to whether they considered reaching out to Jefferson Parish for assistance. We cannot say that this demonstrates an action taken by the Coroner's Office in furtherance of their statutory duty to identify Justin. Clearly, the Coroner's Office investigators had the ability to reach out to Jefferson Parish or other jurisdictions on their own but failed to take that initiative.

Assignment of Error No. 2: The trial court erred in concluding that the actions of the Coroner's Office were outrageous and reckless and, thus, subject to liability under La. R.S. 13:5713.

Standard of Review

“A trial court's factual determinations made after a bench trial are reviewed with the manifest error/clearly wrong standard of review.” Reaver v. Degas House, LLC, 2022-0464, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/13/23), 359 So.3d 570, 573, writ denied, 2023-00532 (La. 6/7/23), 361 So.3d 985 (citing Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2003-1734, p. 9 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 90, 98). “This standard ‘precludes the setting aside of a district court's finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety.’ ” Id.

La. R.S. 13:5713(I)(1) provides that “[l]iability shall not be imposed on an elected coroner or his support staff based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform their policymaking or discretionary acts when such acts are within the course and scope of their lawful powers and duties.” La. R.S. 13:5713(I)(2)(b) further provides that such immunity is not applicable to “acts or omissions which constitute criminal, fraudulent, malicious, intentional, willful, outrageous, reckless, or flagrant misconduct.” (Emphasis added).

The Coroner's Office maintains that its actions in handling and identifying Justin's body were neither outrageous nor reckless. Thus, it is argued that the immunity afforded by La. R.S. 13:5713(I)(1) would apply.

La. R.S. 13:5713(H) establishes a coroner's duties in the identification of a decedent, providing in part:

In deaths investigated by the coroner where he is not able to establish the identity of the dead body by visual means, fingerprints, or other identifying data, the coroner shall have a qualified dentist or forensic anthropologist or forensic pathologist carry out a dental examination of the dead body. If the coroner, with the aid of the dental examination, is still not able to establish the identity of the dead body, the coroner shall prepare and forward the dental examination and other identifying records to state and local law enforcement agencies. (Emphasis added).

La. R.S. 13:5714(A) further provides that “[t]he coroner or his designee shall make every reasonable effort to notify the next of kin in all cases of deaths for which he has jurisdiction including but not limited to deaths enumerated in R.S. 13:5713(A).”

The Coroner's Office asserts that La. R.S. 13:5713(H) does not establish a timeframe for identifying a body by visual means, fingerprints, or other identifying data, other than by stating that a dental examination should be utilized after the coroner is unable to identify the body by those means. Therefore, it is argued that the duty to utilize a dental examination does not arise until the use of visual means, fingerprints, or other identifying data is unsuccessful. The Coroner's Office asserts that the NOPD never reported that it was unable to make a fingerprint examination. Rather, the results were just delayed. Moreover, the Coroner's Office points out that La. R.S. 13:5713(B)(3) provides that “[t]he coroner may hold any dead body for any length of time that he deems necessary.”

Mr. Smith counters, arguing that the three-week inaction on the part of the Coroner's Office was outrageous and reckless conduct sufficient to defeat the qualified immunity under La. R.S. 13:5713(I)(1). We agree.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie testified that between June 21, 2023, when the NOPD took Justin's fingerprints, and July 12, 2023, when Mr. Smith brought in a photograph of Justin, there was no documentation of anything being done to identity Justin's body. He acknowledged that he did not utilize any other free available search methods such as the Louisiana State Police database, which would include fingerprints and mugshots of arrested individuals, including Justin.⁵ When questioned, Mr. Lapeyrolerie further stated that he did not contact any other surrounding jurisdictions to assist with a fingerprint identification.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie testified that the Coroner's Office did not request a dental examination as set forth in La. R.S. 13:5713 because they were waiting on the fingerprint identification from the NOPD. He denied previous statements that the Coroner's Office was forced to wait on the NOPD. However, he acknowledged that there was no backup plan in place. He further confirmed that there were no written policies or protocols in place to address such a situation. Mr. Lapeyrolerie admitted that written protocols would have been better.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie testified that the Coroner's Office has no duty to check missing persons reports when attempting to identify a body. He further considered such a search to be over burdensome.

Additionally, Mr. Lapeyrolerie acknowledged that even though the first OPC (dated two days before Justin's body came in) is documented in the MH log, it would not have been checked by the investigators. It is undisputed that the OPC included a description of Justin and reported that he had suicidal ideations, yet the Coroner's Office admittedly never cross-referenced its own record. When Mr. Smith came in for the second OPC, Justin's body was already in the morgue. Again, no one checked to see if any of the unidentified bodies matched the description given by Mr. Smith. We also find it troubling that at a time when Mr. Smith was obviously desperate to find his son, he was led to believe that the OPC had been issued. As Mr. Smith testified, he was given the OPC in a sealed envelope and told to bring it to the NOPD.

In Theron and Sherry Pfantz v. Dr. Dwight McKenna in his Capacity as Coroner, 2025-0300, 2025-0318 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/22/25), 2025 WL 2976521 (unpub) (“Pfantz”), this Court considered the immunity afforded the Coroner's Office when a delay occurs in the identification of a decedent.

In the Pfantz case, the unidentified body of Benjamin L. Pfantz was brought to the Coroner's Office on September 9, 2022. After taking fingerprints, the NOPD incorrectly identified him a Benjamin L. Peantz. However, his date of birth and state identification number were also provided to the Coroner's Office.

Using the incorrect spelling provided by the NOPD, the Coroner's Office conducted one TLO ⁶ search to determine next of kin. The Coroner's Office did not search by date of birth, and performed no follow up when the search failed to produce results. Despite several calls from Mrs. Pfantz between September 2022 and May 2023, the Coroner's Office did not ask whether Benjamin had any identifying marks, surgical scars, or tattoos. Benjamin remained misidentified for over eight months, and was cremated before his family was notified of his death.

Judgment was rendered in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Pfantz in the amount of $10,000.00 on their claims of emotional distress. On appeal, this Court affirmed and increased the general damage award to $50,000.00. In affirming the trial court, we recognized that:

Pursuant to La. R.S. 13:5713(I)(2)(b), the Coroner lacks immunity for “acts or omissions which constitute criminal, fraudulent, malicious, intentional, willful, outrageous, reckless, or flagrant misconduct.” Thus, the immunity enjoyed by the Coroner and provided by these statutes may be ameliorated by misconduct in the performance or omission of his duties.

Id. 2025-0300, 2025-0318 at p. 12, 2025 WL 2976521, at *6.

Additionally, the Pfantz Court held that pursuant to La. R.S. 13:5713(H):

[W]hile the Coroner may avail himself of several methods of identification during a death investigation, it is ultimately his responsibility to establish the identities of the decedents in his office, not the NOPD. The statute mandates that the Coroner work in tandem with law enforcement agencies and medical providers to ensure proper identification of decedents.

Id. 2025-0300, 2025-0318 at p. 8, 2025 WL 2976521, at *4.

Considering the statutory pronouncements stated herein and after our review of record in the present case, we find that the inaction on the part of the Coroner's Office clearly rises to the level of outrageous and reckless misconduct. As the trial court correctly determined in reasons for judgment:

Pursuant to La R.S. 13:5713(H), fingerprinting is not the sole investigatory tool that the Coroner's Office is required to use for identification. Identification of the decedent can be done by visual means or other identifying data. It is not disputed that the Coroner's Office was provided with a physical description of Justin. On June 20, 2023, while Mr. Smith was attempting to obtain the second (2nd) OPC at the Coroner's Office, Justin's body was already in the morgue as one (1) of only two (2) unidentified white male bodies. Despite Mr. Smith's repeated presence in the building and physical description provided, no attempts were made by Coroner's Office to connect the unidentified body with the description provided, nor does the Coroner's Office have any protocols or procedures in place to compare to missing persons reports or OPCs issued by its own office. The Coroner's Office failed to conduct the bare minimum investigation, as testified to by their own Chief Investigator.

Assignment of Error No. 3: Alternatively, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $67,500.00 in general damages

As the Louisiana Supreme Court recently reiterated in McBride v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 2024-01519, pp. 35-36 (La. 6/27/25), 413 So.3d 452, 479:

General damages are reviewed for an abuse of discretion because the trial court “is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility and see the evidence firsthand.” Bouquet v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 08-309, p. 4 (La. 4/4/08), 979 So. 2d 456, 459. “The role of an appellate court in reviewing a general damages award is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact.” Id., 08-309, p. 5, 979 So. 2d at 459. The discretion accorded to the trier of fact in fixing general damages is vast, “such that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.” Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750, p. 5 (La. 10/19/10), 50 So. 3d 1251, 1255-56.

The Coroner's Office argues that the amount awarded to Mr. Smith was abusively high when compared to the Pfantz case, where the circumstances were more egregious. Justin was only held for twenty-five days as opposed to eighty days in Pfantz and, further, there was no evidence presented of decomposition.

This argument is unpersuasive. At the outset, we find that the record supports Mr. Smith's claim that Justin's body was too decomposed to view. Mr. Smith testified that he was not allowed to see Justin because his body at the Coroner's Office was too decomposed. He claimed this was reiterated by the funeral home, necessitating that Justin be cremated against his wishes.

A July 17, 2023 entry in the chronology log reflects that the Coroner's Office received a communication from Detective Gullo with the NOPD, reporting that he was contacted by Mr. Smith stating that Justin was heavily decomposed and that the family could not view the body at the funeral home. The log does not show a response from the Coroner's Office.

Mr. Lapeyrolerie conceded that there were problems with the coolers during Justin's time there. Moreover, the third-party demand filed by the Coroner's Office against the City of New Orleans alleged that the morgue “has had significant air conditioning problems such as the appropriate temperature for the storage of bodies.”

Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's general damage award. The argument that the Coroner's Office was justified in waiting for the NOPD to analyze the fingerprints is specious at best. It is the statutory duty of the Coroner's Office to investigate deaths and establish the identity of a decedent. La. R.S. 13:5713 dictates that further actions shall be taken when the Coroner's Office is not able to establish identity through visual means, fingerprints or other identifying data. Here, the Coroner's Office took no further action to identify Justin by other readily available means. Even more egregious is the fact that the Coroner's Office had a physical description of Justin in their own records, yet failed to cross-reference that information with the only two unidentified white males in the morgue.

Finally, it is evident from Mr. Smith's testimony that he suffered a terrible loss with the death of his only child. That loss was compounded by the ordeal he endured in searching for his son, only to find that Justin had been at the Coroner's Office for over twenty days.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in rendering the July 11, 2025 judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

I respectfully concur in the result. I would affirm the judgment on the narrow ground that, under the particular facts of this case, the district court had a reasonable basis to find that the Coroner's Office failed to take reasonable available steps to identify Justin Smith and notify his next of kin. I do not join any broader suggestion that delay, lack of written protocols, or reliance on law enforcement fingerprinting, standing alone, constitutes outrageous or reckless misconduct under La. R.S. 13:5713. For these reasons, I concur in the decree only.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As addressed below in the first assignment of error, the Coroner's Office sought to introduce an email exchange between Mr. Lapeyrolerie and Kevin Bell with the NOPD related to running the fingerprints. The trial court denied introduction of the evidence, finding that the two emails were not produced in discovery. The Coroner's Office made a proffer of the evidence.

2.   The dismissal of the Third-Party Demand is not before us on appeal.

3.   Following the death of Mr. Smith, Ernest M. Posey, Independent Executor of the Succession of Sidney Hoffman Smith, was substituted as party plaintiff on January 22, 2026.

4.   La. C.C.P. art. 1551(C) provides:If a party's attorney fails to obey a pretrial order, or to appear at the pretrial and scheduling conference, or is substantially unprepared to participate in the conference or fails to participate in good faith, the court, on its own motion or on the motion of a party, after hearing, may make orders as are just, including orders provided in Article 1471(A)(2), (3), and (4).

5.   Although details are not provided, the record indicates that Justin did have a criminal history.

6.   TLO is a paid search system used by law enforcement to locate individuals.

Judge Karen K. Herman

LOBRANO, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT