GORDON CORMIER v. ENTERGY LOUISIANA LLC (2025)

Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.

JMG

JLW

JDH

WJC

JBM

PDG

CRC

Supreme Court of Louisiana September 16, 2025

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2025-C-00261

GORDON S. CORMIER

VS.

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu

PER CURIAM

The Third Circuit overruled the trial court because it found “a public utility's duty to repair a hole it creates in a right of way is limited in time” and that Cormier had “failed to produce any evidence that the hole was created within a year of Mr. Cormier's fall.” Cormier v. Entergy La., LLC, 2024-341 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/5/25), 407 So. 3d 17, 23 (citing Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co, Inc. v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 497 So. 2d 1034 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1986)).¹ There is no basis in law for the appellate court's view that a plaintiff must additionally prove the defendant caused the defect within a limited time prior to the accident. There is a prescriptive period running from a plaintiff's injury, not a peremptive period running from a defendant's negligence. This legal error interdicted the appellate court's manifest error review of the trial court's decision.

We express no opinion concerning whether this record establishes that the plaintiff met his burden to prove the defendant's negligence under La. C.C. art. 2315. This matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, for review of the trial court's decision in accordance with the views expressed herein.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Hartford involved pre-1996 law on strict liability. Those cases are inapplicable to the analysis under the current law. See Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc., 24-00840 (La. 3/21/25), 403 So.3d 573, 580. The plaintiff is required to prove the five elements outlined in the duty/risk analysis. Id. at 580-81. It was legal error to impose an additional element of proof.