BENTON v. STATE THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (2020)

Writ denied.

The issue in this case is whether a state agency and its employees are entitled to immunity from a suit for damages caused by an employee who was involved in an automobile accident while traveling to deliver food assistance cards during a declared State of Emergency triggered by flooding. In my view, the state is entitled to immunity.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 29:735(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part:

Neither the state nor any political subdivision ․ except in case of willful misconduct, the agents' employees or representatives of any of them engaged in any homeland security and emergency preparedness and recovery activities ․ shall be liable for ․ any injury to persons or damage to property as a result of such activity.

Notably, this statute is entitled the “Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance Act.” (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy and undisputed that a heavy rain event occurred over portions of Texas and Louisiana between March 8, 2016, and March 12, 2016. As a result, the governor had declared a State of Emergency to remain in effect from March 9, 2016, until April 7, 2016. This automobile accident occurred on March 22, 2016, well within the declared State of Emergency. Defendant, Ashley Shields, was an employee of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) and, at the direction of her employer, was driving her boyfriend's vehicle to Hillcrest Baptist Church for the purpose of distributing Disaster Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (“DSNAP”) cards to flood victims. The distribution of DSNAP cards was part of an emergency flood aid program administered by the DCFS. There is no evidence of any “willful misconduct” on the part of defendant in connection with this accident.

The facts in this case fit the aforementioned statute like a glove. It is clear that the DCFS employee was engaged in homeland security and emergency preparedness and recovery activities at the time of the accident. The employee was delivering DSNAP cards to flood victims at a designated church. This was not her routine employment—she was delivering food assistance to victims of the flood.

Consequentially, both the DCFS and Ms. Shields, according to the precise wording of the statute, are clearly entitled to immunity. I would grant this writ, reverse the lower courts, and grant the state's motion for summary judgment.

Crichton, J., would grant. Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons. Crain, J., would grant.