Lynda Estorffe v. Honorable Tom Schedler in his official capacity as the duly elected Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LYNDA ESTORFFE NO. 2019 CW 1639

VERSUS Page 1 of 2)

HONORABLE TOM SCHEDLER IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE

DULY ELECTED SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR THE STATE OF
AUGUST 20, 2020
LOUISIANA AND THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA

In Re: Honorable Torn Schedler in his ( then) official capacity
as
the duly eleceted Secretary of State for the state

of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana, applying for
supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court,
Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2018- 10898.

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The October 23, 2019, judgment the
denying
motion for summary judgment filed by relators, the State of

Louisiana and the Honorable Tom Schedler in his ( then) official

capacity as the duly elected Secretary of State for the State of
Louisiana, is reversed, and we hereby grant relators' motion for
summary judgment and dismiss all claims asserted by Lynda
Estorffe against relators. Ms. Estorffe' s claims against
relators are based on the allegedly defective nature of the
recoil system of
voting machine number 31174 and relators'

alleged negligent inspection of the recoil system. To establish
a claim of negligence under La. Civ. Code art. 2315 or a claim

of strict liability under La. Civ. Code art. 2317 and La. R. S.
9: 2800, Ms. Estorffe must show,
among other things, that
relators had actual or constructive notice of the particular
defect. See Netecke v. State ex rel. DOTD, 98- 1182 ( La.
10/ 19/ 99), 747 So. 2d 489, 494 and Clark v. East Baton Rouge
Parish Department of Public Works, 2017- 1445 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
4/ 6/ 18), 248 So. 3d 409, 412. It is undisputed that state
employees inspected the voting machines at issue on a monthly
basis, including a week prior to the April 5, 2014 election.
These inspections included plugging each of the voting machines
into an outlet and thereafter pulling on the electrical cords of
each voting machine to ensure the cords retracted into the
voting machines. There were no reports of defects in the
any
recoil system of the issue
voting machine at prior to the
election, nor did Ms.
Estorffe document any defect in the voting
machine at issue at any time prior tc her fall. Absent notice
of an issue with a specific
voting machine' s recoil mechanism
upon general inspection or otherwise, relators had no

independent duty to perform additional inspections of the
recoiling mechanisms of See
every voting machine. Jenkins v.
Hernandez, 2019- 0874 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 3/ 20), --- So. 3d ---,
2020 WL 2898123 at * 4. (" In deciding whether to impose a duty
in a particular case, the court must make in
a policy decision
light of the unique facts and circumstances presented.")
Therefore, Ms. Estorffe cannot meet her burden of proof at trial
that relators had actual or constructive notice of a defect in
the recoil system in machine number 31174
voting or that

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2019 CW 1639

Page 2 of 2)

relators are liable for negligent inspection of the voting
machine. See e. g., Broussard v. Gulfport Energy Corporation,
2018- 840 ( La. App. 3rd Cir. 6/ 5/ 19), 274 So. 3d 613.
Accordingly, we hereby dismiss all claims asserted by Ms.
Estorffe against relators with prejudice.

PMC
JEW

Holdridge, J. concurs.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

EPUTY LE K OF COURT
FOR THE COURT