Gordon S. Cormier v. Entergy Louisiana, Llc

Supreme Court of Louisiana
September 16, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
GORDON S. CORMIER
VS.
ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
No. 2025-C-00261
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Gordon S. Cormier - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Number(s) 2016- 4476, Court of
Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) 24-341;
_ _ _ _ _ _
September 16, 2025
Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.
JMG
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
PDG
CRC
09/16/2025 "See News Release 041 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-C-00261
GORDON S. CORMIER
VS.
ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit,
Parish of Calcasieu
PER CURIAM
The Third Circuit overruled the trial court because it found “a public utility’s
duty to repair a hole it creates in a right of way is limited in time” and that Cormier
had “failed to produce any evidence that the hole was created with in a year of Mr.
Cormier’s fall.” Cormier v. Entergy La., LLC, 2024-341 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/5/25),
407 So. 3d 17, 23 (citing Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co, Inc. v. South Central
Bell Telephone Co., 497 So. 2d 1034 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1986) ).1 There is no basis in
law for the appellate court’s view that a plaintiff must additionally prove the
defendant caused the defect within a limited time prior to the accident. There is a
prescriptive period running from a plaintiff’s injury, not a peremptive period running
from a defendant’s negligence. This legal error interdicted the appellate court’s
manifest error review of the trial court’s decision.
We express no opinion concerning whether this record establishes that the
plaintiff met his burden to prove the defendant’s negligence under La. C.C. art. 2315.
This matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, for review of the trial
court’s decision in accordance with the views expressed herein.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
1 Hartford involved pre-1996 law on strict liability. Those cases are inapplicable to the analysis
under the current law. See Campbell v. Orient -Express Hotels Louisiana, Inc. , 24 -00840 (La.
3/21/25), 403 So.3d 573, 580. The plaintiff is required to prove the five elements outlined in the
duty/risk analysis. Id. at 580-81. It was legal error to impose an additional element of proof.