Shilling ex rel. Shilling v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 22, 2005 928 So. 2d 95
Shilling ex rel. Shilling v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development, 928 So. 2d 95 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005).
Cited by
- Labarre v. Occidental Chem. Co. 251 So. 3d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
- Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co. 152 So. 3d 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
- Williams v. Board of Supervisors of University of Louisiana System 135 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
- Gutierrez v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 92 So. 3d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
- Goza v. Parish of West Baton Rouge 21 So. 3d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
- Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. 9 So. 3d 932 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
- Moss v. State 993 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
- Charan v. Bowman 965 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
- Morgan v. City of Baton Rouge 960 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Capone v. Ormet Corp. 822 So. 2d 684
- Aucoin v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Dev. 712 So. 2d 62
- Netecke v. State Ex Rel. DOTD 747 So. 2d 489
Opinion text
KUHN, J., concurring. hThe State urges that dictum found in Capone v. Ormet Corp., 01-0060 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/21/02), 822 So.2d 684, 702 , should be controlling. Therein, the Capone court stated that based on the language of the jurisprudence of this court and based on La. R.S. 48:1(22), “there is no duty on the part of a governmental entity (state, parish or municipal) to construct or maintain a roadside ditch in such a way that it does not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists on an adjacent roadway.” Id. The majority herein does not specifically rebut this argument but correctly addresses the applicable jurisprudence, citing Au-coin v. State, Dept, of Transp. and Dev., 97-1938 (La.4/24/98), 712 So.2d 62 , and finding that the State has a duty to maintain roadside shoulders and ditches in such a manner that they do not present an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists using the adjacent roadway. Likewise, the majority refers to Netecke v. State, DOTD, 98-1182, 98-1197 (La.10/19/99), 747 So.2d 489 , wherein the Supreme Court concluded that “DOTD must maintain the shoulders and the area off the shoulders, within its right-of-way, in such a condition that they do not present an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists using the adjacent roadway .... ” Accordingly, the majority’s position is well supported by the governing jurisprudence and the Capone dictum is properly ignored.