Darcy Driver, Deann Driver And Danielle Driver-roussel, Individually And On Behalf Of Their Deceased Parents, Albert, Jr. And Kathie Driver v. Willis Knighton Pierremont Health Center, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 25, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
DARCY DRIVER, DEANN DRIVER AND
DANIELLE DRIVER-ROUSSEL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR
DECEASED PARENTS, ALBERT, JR. AND
KATHIE DRIVER
VS.
WILLIS KNIGHTON PIERREMONT HEALTH
CENTER, ET AL.
No. 2025-C-00391
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board - Applicant
Intervenor; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District
Court Number(s) 618,081, Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Number(s) 56,039-CA;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 25, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
JLW
WJC
JBM
PDG
JMG
CRC
06/25/2025 "See News Release 029 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-C-00391
consolidated with
No. 2025-C-00400
DARCY DRIVER, DEANN DRIVER AND DANIELLE DRIVER-ROUSSEL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR DECEASED PARENTS,
ALBERT, JR. AND KATHIE DRIVER
VS.
WILLIS KNIGHTON PIERREMONT HEALTH CENTER, ET AL.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo
PER CURIAM
Writs granted. In this medical malpractice suit, the court of appeal found the
jury’s determination that plaintiffs failed to prove the applicable standard of care was
manifestly erroneous, reversed the verdict, conducted de novo review, and rendered
judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants, Willis -Knighton Health
Center and Nkunj Parikh, M.D. However, the appellate court failed to compare and
allocate fault between the two defendants.
Louisiana Civil Code article 2323 provides that “[i]n any action for damages
where a person suffers injury, death, or loss, the degree or percentage of fault of all
persons causing or contributing to the injury, death, or loss shall be determined . . .
regardless of the basis of liability.” Article 2323 requires the fault of every tortfeasor
responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries be compared, regardless of the legal theory of
liability asserted. Dumas v. State ex rel. Dept. of Culture, Recreation & Touris m,
2002-0563 (La. 10/15/02), 828 So. 2d 530, 537. If the fact finder determines two
tortfeasors negligently injured a plaintiff, the liability between them will be a joint

2

and divisible obligation; they will not be solidarily liable, and each tortfeasor will be
liable only for their portion of fault. Dumas, 828 So. 2d at 537. It is well -settled
that the comparative fault regime applies to liability based on medical malpractice.
Miller v. LAMMICO , 2007 -1352 (La. 1/16/08), 973 So. 2d 693, 705. Further,
comparative fault must be allocated prior to imposition of the Louisiana Medical
Malpractice Act’s damages cap. Miller, 973 So. 2d at 711.
The failure to apportion fault among the defendants constitutes legal error.
Hoffman v. East Jefferson General Hosp., 2000-1216 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/13/00), 778
So. 2d 33, 42, writ denied, 2001-0117 (La. 3/16/01), 787 So. 2d 314. Consequently,
we vacate the judgment of the court of appeal and remand this matter to the court of
appeal to perform the comparative fault analysis required by Article 2323. We
express no opinion on the merits of any other argument raised in these writ
applications.
WRITS GRANTED; JUDGMENT OF APPELLATE COURT V ACATED;
REMANDED TO APPELLATE COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS.