DEAN v. JACKSON (2022)

Writ application denied.

A motion for summary judgment may only be granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact; “when [there are] contested issues ․ summary judgment [is] inappropriate.” Larson v. XYZ Ins. Co., 2016-0745, p. 7 (La. 5/3/17), 226 So. 3d 412, 417; La. C.C.P. art. 966 A(3). Here, summary judgment was granted on the basis that the applicant failed to show that the State knew or had reason “to anticipate harm [would] ensue.” Dean v. Jackson, 2021-0987, p. 6 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/7/22), 2022 WL 669365 at *12.

In his dissent, Judge Hester noted the evidence in the record demonstrated that “[a]t the time of the incident, the officers were aware that Dean was in fear of being attacked, and the failure to follow security measures of locking the gate enabled Dugas to attack Dean.” Id., 2021-0987, 2022 WL 669365 at *1. This finding is consistent with our settled jurisprudence that “penal authorities have a duty to use reasonable care in preventing harm after they have reasonable cause to anticipate it.” State ex rel. Jackson v. Phelps, 95-2294, p. 3 (La. 4/8/96), 672 So. 2d 665, 667. “Whether the state breached its duty will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.” Id.

In my view, the dissent correctly concluded that “genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the officers had at least an adequate reason to anticipate harm to [the applicant] and failed to take reasonable action to avert it.” Id. For this reason, I would grant the writ application and reverse the decisions of the lower courts.

Hughes, J., would grant. McCallum, J., would grant and assigns reasons. Griffin, J., would grant for the reasons assigned by Justice McCallum.