|
Liability |
|
Joint and
Several |
|
Economic
Damages |
Abolished* |
*Joint liability has been
abolished, except for defendants who conspire to
commit intentional or willful acts.
La. Civ. Code arts. 1804,
2324. |
|
Non-Economic
Damages |
Abolished* |
See
above. |
|
May a
Jury Allocate Fault Between All Persons
Contributing to an Injury? |
Yes |
La. Civ. Code. art.
2323(A); Keith v. United States Fidelity &
Guaranty, 694 So.2d 180 (La.
1997). |
|
Market
Share Liability |
No |
Thompson v. Johns-Manville
Sales Corp., 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir.
1983); Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass’n Inc.,
930 F. Supp. 241 (E.D. La. 1996), aff’d,
106 F.3d 1245 (5th Cir.
1997). |
|
Defenses |
|
Comparative
Negligence |
Yes, pure comparative
negligence |
La. Civ. Code art.
2323. |
|
Assumption
of Risk |
No |
Subsumed into comparative
negligence.
Murray v. Ramada Inns,
Inc., 521 So. 2d 1123 (La.
1988). |
|
Product
Misuse |
Yes |
A manufacturer is only
liable only if the injury arose from a reasonably
anticipated use of the product, and, if not, then
a court need not reach the issue of whether the
product is unreasonably
dangerous.
Johnson v. Black &
Decker U.S., Inc., 701 So. 2d 1360 (La. Ct.
App. 1997); Daigle v. Audi of Am., Inc.,
598 So. 2d 1304 (La. Ct. App.
1992). |
|
Compliance
With Government Standards |
No |
Compliance or
noncompliance with government standards are
admissible, but not determinative on the issue of
liability.
Dunne v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 679 So. 2d 1034 (La. Ct. App.
1996); Hopper v. Crown, 646 So. 2d 933 (La.
Ct. App. 1994). |
|
Statute
of Repose |
No |
|
|
Government
Contractor Defense |
Uncertain |
|
|
McLawsuits
Permitted? Can a food manufacturer,
distributor, seller, or retailer be sued based on
an individual's weight gain, obesity, or
obesity-related health
condition? |
No |
|
|
Compensatory Damages |
|
Is there a statutory limit
on economic damages? |
Yes, in medical malpractice
cases only |
In medical malpractice
cases, the state limits total damages to $500,000,
excluding damages recoverable for future medical
care.
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
40:1299.42(B). This statute was upheld by
the Louisiana Supreme Court in Butler v. Flint
Goodrich Hosp. of Dillard Univ., 607 So. 2d
517 (La. 1989). |
|
Is there a statutory limit
on non-economic damages? |
Yes, in medical
malpractice cases only |
See
above. |
|
Is recovery for
medical monitoring permitted without physical
injury? |
No |
La. Civ. Code Ann. Art
2315. |
|
Punitive Damages |
|
Is there a statutory
limit? |
Punitive damages are not
permitted |
La. Civ. Code art.
3546. |
|
Is there any restriction
on imposing
multiple punitive damage awards for same
conduct? |
N/A |
|
|
Does the state receive a
portion of the punitive damage
award? |
N/A |
|
|
What standard is
used? |
N/A |
|
|
Procedure |
|
Venue |
|
|
|
Conducive to Abuse
- Does the statute permit forum
shopping? |
No |
For
a domestic
corporation -- in the parish where its registered
office is located.
For
a foreign corporation
licensed to do business in Louisiana -- in the
parish where its primary business office is
located as designated in its application to do
business in the state, or, if no such designation
is made, then in the parish where its primary
place of business in the state is
located.
For
a foreign corporation
not licensed to do business in Louisiana or a
nonresident who has not appointed an agent for the
service of process in the manner provided by law,
other than a foreign or alien insurer -- in a
parish where the process may be, and subsequently
is, served on the
defendant;
For
a nonresident, other
than a foreign corporation or a foreign or alien
insurer, who has appointed an agent for the
service of process -- in the parish of the
designated post office address of an agent for the
service of process;
For
a foreign or alien
insurer -- in the parish of East Baton
Rouge.
La.
Code Civ. Pro. art. 42.
Louisiana has codified the
doctrine of forum non conveniens and
provides that the court may dismiss a case upon
the motion of a defendant if it arises out of
state.
La. Code Civ. Pro. art.
123. |
|
Class
Actions |
|
|
|
Is there a right to an
immediate appeal of class
certification? |
No |
Relief
is only available by extraordinary showing of
irreparable injury justifying interlocutory appeal
under La. Code Civ. Pro. art 2083.
Carr
v. GAF, Inc., 701 So.2d 1384 (La.
1997). |
|
Appeal
Bonds |
|
|
|
Does the amount of the
required bond place undue pressure on the
defendant to settle rather than
appeal? |
No,
limit on appeal bonds applies only in tobacco
cases or any litigation where the state is a
judgment creditor |
When
the judgment is for a sum of money, the amount of
the security shall be equal to the amount of the
judgment, including the interest allowed by the
judgment to the date the security is furnished,
exclusive of the costs. However, in all cases,
except litigation related to the Tobacco Master
Settlement Agreement, or any litigation where the
state is a judgment creditor, where the amount of
the judgment exceeds $150 million dollars, the
trial court, upon motion and after a hearing, may,
in the exercise of its broad discretion, fix the
security in an amount sufficient to protect the
rights of the judgment creditor while at the same
time preserving the favored status of appeals in
Louisiana.
La.
Code Civ. P. Art. 2124(B)(1).
In
order to secure and protect the monies to be
received as a result of the Master Settlement
Agreement, in civil litigation under any legal
theory involving a signatory, or successor of a
signatory, or an affiliate of a signatory, to the
Master Settlement Agreement, the appeal bond shall
be determined in accordance with the Code of Civil
Procedure, except that the total amount of
security required of all defendants collectively
shall not exceed $50 million.
La.
Rev. Stat. tit. 39, §
98.6. |
|
Evidence |
|
Has the state adopted
Daubert, which requires the judge to
act as a "gatekeeper" against unreliable expert
testimony? |
Yes* |
*Louisiana adopted
Daubert in a criminal case in
1993.
State v. Foret, 628
So. 2d 1116, 1123 (La. 1993).
In 1996, a Louisiana
appellate court held Daubert not
determinative because the expert’s opinion did not
“constitute scientific expert testimony pertaining
to new scientific knowledge.” Cross v.
Cutter Biological, 676 So. 2d 131, 146 (La.
Ct. App. 1996). The court cited State v.
Foret for the proposition that Daubert
enumerates illustrative considerations to
determine whether the reasoning or methodology
underlying an expert’s testimony is scientifically
valid and can properly be applied to the facts at
issue.
Some Louisiana courts do
not apply Daubert to expert testimony
concerning hedonic damages involving loss of
enjoyment of life. Chustz v. J.B. Hunt
Transp., Inc., 659 So. 2d 784, 785 (La. Ct.
App. 1995). Further, Daubert is not
used to evaluate the expertise of a proffered
expert witness. State v. Lewis, 654
So. 2d 761, 764 (La. Ct. App. 1995). A
Daubert hearing allows the trial court to
conduct a preliminary assessment of whether the
reasoning or methodology underlying the proffered
testimony is scientifically valid and whether it
can be applied to the facts at issue.
McMahon v. Regional Transit Auth., 704 So.
2d 392, 394 (La. Ct. App.
1997). |
|
Private Lawsuits Under Consumer
Protection Statutes |
|
Must each individual
plaintiff show that he or she relied on the
allegedly unfair or deceptive practice at
issue? |
Uncertain |
Any person who suffers any
ascertainable loss of money or movable property .
. . as a result of the use or employment by
another person of an unfair or deceptive method,
act or practice . . . may bring an action
individually but not in a representative capacity
to recover actual damages.
La. Rev. Stat. §
51:1409(A). |
|
What is the level of
scienter (intent) required of a
defendant? |
Uncertain |
|
|
Are class actions
permitted? |
No |
La. Rev. Stat.
§
51:1409(A). |
|
Are statutory damages (an
amount set by statute) provided for even if a
plaintiff cannot show an actual economic
injury? |
No |
Actual damages
only.
La. Rev. Stat. §
51:1409(A). |
|
Does the plaintiff
automatically receive treble (triple) damages
regardless of the intent of the
defendant? |
No* |
If the court finds the
unfair or deceptive method, act or practice was
knowingly used, after being put on notice by the
director or attorney general, the court shall
award three times the actual damages
sustained.
La. Rev. Stat.
§
51:1409(A). |
|
Does every prevailing
plaintiff receive attorneys fees and
costs? |
Yes |
La. Rev. Stat.
§
51:1409(A). |
|
Is conduct authorized by
or in compliance with a state or federal statute
or regulation exempt from the
act? |
Yes |
“The provisions of
this Chapter shall not apply to… [a]ny conduct
which complies with section 5(a)(1) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)], as from
time to time amended, any rule or regulation
promulgated thereunder and any finally adjudicated
court decision interpreting the provisions of said
Act, rules and regulations.”
La. Rev. Stat.
§
51:1406. |
|
Jury Service |
|
Automatic exemptions and
disqualifications based on occupation eliminated? |
Yes |
|
|
Are the grounds for
obtaining an excuse from service closely
defined? |
Yes |
Hardship exemptions
are limited to three circumstances: (1) the
impossibility of obtaining an appropriate
substitute caregiver; (2) the incurring of costs
that would have a substantial adverse impact on
the payment of the individual’s necessary daily
living expenses; or (3) physical illness or
disease. Jurors may not receive an excuse
from service solely because they will need to be
absent from work.
La. Rev. Stat. §
13:3042(B). |
|
May jurors automatically
postpone and reschedule
service? |
Yes |
Individuals may reschedule
jury service one time to a more convenient time within six
months.
La. Rev. Stat. §
13:3042.1. |
|
Is a juror's employment
and leave time adequately protected during
service? |
Yes |
An employer may not discharge
or otherwise subject to any adverse employment
action, without cause, any employee called to
serve or presently serving any jury duty and no
employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule,
regulation, or policy providing for the discharge
of any employee who has been called to serve, or
who is presently serving on, any grand jury or on
any jury at any criminal or civil trial, provided
the employee notifies his or her employer of such
summons within a reasonable period of time after
receipt of a summons and prior to his or her
appearance for jury duty.
La. Rev. Stat. §
23:965(A). |
|
Is there a limit on the
frequency of jury service? |
No |
|
|
Is the length of service
limited to no more than one day or one
trial? |
No |
The length of jury
service varies widely. Several parishes
require a 2-week commitment. Louisiana
district courts may adopt local rules providing
for one-day or one-trial term of service.
Many parishes continue to require jurors to
perform longer periods of jury
service. |
|
Juror per
diem |
$25, plus
mileage* |
Employers are required
to compensate their employees during the first day
of jury service. After the first day of jury
service, jurors not compensated by their employers
receive $25 plus a mileage allowance, for each day
of attendance in court.
La. Rev. Stat. §§
13:3049(B)(2),
23:965(B)(1). |
|
Is additional compensation
available on lengthy trials? |
No* |
Under a 2003 law, a
juror who does not receive full compensation from
his or her employer, may receive additional
compensation from the court of up to $300 after
the tenth day of service. Jurors who suffer
financial hardship may also receive up $100 per
day after the third day of service, if the trial
lasts over 10 days. The Judicial Council of
the Supreme Court of Louisiana is directed to
promulgate rules for the administration of the
fund. These additional payments are not
available until the legislature adopt legislation
providing a funding source for the
fund.
La. Rev. Stat. §
13:3050. |
|
Is the potential penalty
for nonappearance sufficient to encourage
participation? |
No |
The judge may punish a
juror for failure to appear for jury service by a
fine of not more than $50, imprisonment of not
more than 3 days, or both.
La. Rev. Stat. §
13:3049(A). |
|
Problem Jurisdictions |
|
Orleans
Parish |
|
Named as a
jurisdiction on the "watch list" in the American
Tort Reform Association's Judicial
Hellholes
report. |