Lawrence Hughes and Deidra Hughes v. Henry Jenkins, Jr., Replacement Parts Inc., Zurich American Insurance Co., and Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE HUGHES AND DEIDRA NO. 2024 cw 0006
HUGHES

VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2

HENRY JENKINS, JR.,
REPLACEMENT PARTS INC.,
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
CO., AND LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY MAY 17, 2024
AND CORRECTIONS

In Re: The State of Louisiana, through the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police,
and Trooper Austin B. Douglas, applying for
supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 704108.

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, THERIOT, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

STAY LIFTED; WRIT GRANTED. The trial court's December 19,
2023 judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by
defendants, State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public
Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police, and Trooper
Austin Douglas ( collectively " DPS defendants"), is reversed.
Plaintiffs, Lawrence Hughes and Deidra Hughes, allege Trooper
Douglas was negligent in directing traffic through an
intersection when Lawrence Hughes was in a utility bucket
repairing a traffic light signal. Plaintiffs allege Lawrence
Hughes suffered personal injuries when the utility bucket he was
riding in was struck by the driver of a tractor trailer, who was
directed through the intersection by Trooper Douglas. In their
motion for summary judgment, DPS defendants argued that Trooper
Douglas did not have a duty to monitor the height of the utility
bucket containing Lawrence Hughes. A threshold issue in any
negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a
duty. Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 99-1222 ( La. 11/30/99),
752 So.2d 762, 766. Whether a duty is owed is a question of
law. Id. In deciding whether to impose a duty in a particular
case, the court must make a policy decision in light of the
unique facts and circumstances presented. Id. DPS defendants
provided evidence to establish that on March 11, 2020, Trooper
Douglas and another police officer, Sergeant Freddie D. Blair,
were performing traffic detail as requested by Lawrence Hughes'
employer, Diamond Electrical Company, Inc. (" DECO") . Trooper
Douglas and Sgt. Blair were instructed by DECO personnel to
direct traffic through a busy intersection because DECO needed
to turn off the traffic signals at the intersection. Trooper
Douglas and Sgt. Blair directed traffic for approximately three
hours without incident. Trooper Douglas, Sgt. Blair, and Jake
Laborde, a DECO employee who was present during the traffic
light repairs, stated in their respective depositions that other
tractor trailer trucks had travelled through the intersection
prior to Lawrence Hughes' accident without issue. Lawrence
Hughes testified in his deposition that a DECO employee was
supposed to act as a spotter for Hughes and alert him if a tall
truck was coming, but at the time of the accident he did not

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2024 CW 0006

PAGE 2 OF 2

have a spotter. Trooper Douglas was not informed by any DECO
employee that Lawrence Hughes had lowered his utility bucket and
Trooper Douglas stated that he was too busy directing traffic to
monitor DECO employees. We find the unique facts and
circumstances of this case do not warrant imposition of a duty
on Trooper Douglas to monitor the height of Lawrence Hughes'
utility bucket. Additionally, although a law enforcement
officer has an affirmative duty to see that motorists are not
subjected to unreasonable risks of harm, Syrie v. Schilhab, 96-
1027 ( La. 5/20/97), 693 So.2d 1173, 1177, plaintiffs failed to
set forth sufficient summary judgment evidence to demonstrate
that Trooper Douglas was aware of an unreasonable risk of harm.
Accordingly, DPS defendants' motion for summary judgment is
granted, and all claims asserted by plaintiffs, Lawrence Hughes
and Deidra Hughes, against the defendants, State of Louisiana,
through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office
of State Police, and Trooper Austin Douglas, are dismissed with
prejudice.

PMc
CHH

Theriot, J., concurs.

Welch and Miller, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
We concur with lifting the stay, but would deny the writ. The
legislature has given law enforcement officers the exclusive
power to regulate traffic and the public has a corresponding
obligation to follow traffic regulations. Law enforcement
officers are duty bound to exercise this power reasonably to
protect life and limb and to refrain from causing injury or
harm. Blair v. Tynes, 621 So.2d 591, 596 ( La. 1993). When a
law enforcement officer becomes aware of a dangerous traffic
situation, he has the affirmative duty to see that motorists are
not subjected to unreasonable risks of harm. Syrie v. Schilhab,
96-1027 ( La. 5/20/97), 693 So.2d 1173, 1177. We find Trooper
Douglas, who was hired to direct traffic at the intersection
where the accident occurred, owed a duty to the plaintiff,
Lawrence Hughes, to reasonably direct traffic to prevent injury
to Hughes. In our opinion, the question of whether Trooper
Douglas should have been aware of the height of Hughes' bucket
before directing the tractor trailer through the intersection is
a question of breach of a duty, which should be decided by the
trier of fact.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

FOR THE COURT