Patrick E. Phillips v. G & H Seed Company, Inc.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-1405

PATRICK E. PHILLIPS, JR., ET AL.

VERSUS

G & H SEED CO., ET AL.

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, DOCKET NO. 00-C-2220-D
HONORABLE DONALD W. HEBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********

SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Sylvia R. Cooks, and
John D. Saunders, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, concurs and assigns additional reasons.

Elwood C. Stevens, Jr.
Domengeaux Wright Roy & Edwards, LLC
556 Jefferson Street, Suite 500
P.O. Box 3668
Lafayette, LA 70502-3668
(337) 233-3033
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Patrick E. Phillips, et al.

Jerald Edward Knoll, Sr.
The Knoll Law Firm, LLC
P.O. Box 426
Marksville, LA 71351-0426
(318) 253-6200
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Patrick E. Phillips, et al.

Andre’ F. Toce
The Toce Firm, A.P.L.C.
969 Coolidge Blvd.
Lafayette, LA 70503
(337) 233-6818
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Patrick E. Phillips, et al.

Gary A. Bezet
Robert E. Dille
Carol L. Galloway
Allison N. Benoit
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D’Armond, McCowan & Jarman, L.L.P.
II City Plaza
400 Convention Street, Suite 700
P.O. Box 3513
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
(225) 387-0999
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Bayer CropScience LP, Michael Redlich, G&H Seed Company, Inc.,
Crowley Grain Drier, Inc., Nolan J. Guillot, Inc., and Mamou Rice Drier
and Warehouse, Inc.

Terrence D. McCay
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D’Armond, McCowan & Jarman, L.L.P.
One Lakeshore Drive, Suite 1150
Lake Charles, LA 70629
(337) 430-0350
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Bayer CropScience LP, Michael Redlich, G&H Seed Company, Inc.,
Crowley Grain Drier, Inc., Nolan J. Guillot, Inc., and Mamou Rice Drier
and Warehouse, Inc.

Raymond P. Ward
Adams and Reese, L.L.P.
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 581-3234
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Bayer CropScience LP and Michael Redlich

Michael T. Pulaski
McCranie, Sistrunk, Anzelmo, Hardy, Maxwell & McDaniel, PC
195 Greenbriar Blvd., Suite 200
Covington, LA 70433
(337) 831-0946
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Allianz Global Risks and US Insurance Company

COOKS, Judge.

Plaintiffs, who consist of several dozen buyers and/or processors of crawfish,

appeal the trial court’s granting of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment,

which dismissed the remaining claims of the buyer/processor plaintiffs. For the

following reasons, we reverse the summary judgment grants, and remand the matter

back to the trial court for trial on the merits.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This protracted and contentious litigation had its genesis in the late 1990’s,

when Bayer CropScience LP and its employee, Michael G. Redlich, marketed the

insecticide ICON in Louisiana. Certain companies purchased ICON, applied it to rice

seed, and sold the ICON-coated rice seed to rice farmers in Louisiana. Many of these

rice farmers also raised crawfish in their rice ponds.

Essentially, Plaintiffs allege the ICON coated rice seed was introduced into the

rice fields/crawfish ponds of South Louisiana in 1999. The active ingredient in ICON

was fipronil, which is a chemical used to control arthropods and is used in a variety

of compounds to control insects such as termites, fleas, mole crickets and the rice

water weevil. According to the plaintiffs, the introduction of ICON killed and/or

sterilized the crawfish, both wild and pond-raised. According to the plaintiffs, as a

result of the contamination, Louisiana’s annual farm-raised crawfish crop dropped

from over 60 million pounds to approximately 10 million pounds.

Defendants argued the use of ICON is compatible with crawfish farming,

provided the farmer allows for a suitable waiting period between planting the ICON-

treated rice seed and introducing crawfish to the rice field. Defendants also argued the

record breaking drought in Louisiana during the time in question was the reason for

the decline in crawfish production.

-1-

In 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all crawfish farmers in

Louisiana, Craig West, et al. v. G & H Seed Co., et al., No. 99-C-4984-A in the

Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry. That lawsuit was

eventually settled.

Thereafter a class action suit was initiated on behalf of Patrick Phillips and

Atchafalaya Processors, Inc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

This class action suit was brought by crawfish buyers, processors and resellers.

Named as Defendants were Bayer CropScience LP and Michael Redlich. Also named

as Defendants were the companies who purchased the ICON, applied it to the rice

seed, and sold it to the farmers: G&H Seed Co., Inc., Crowley Grain Drier, Inc., Delhi

Seed Co., Inc., Terral Seed Co., Inc., Mamou Rice Drier & Warehouse, Inc.

Plaintiffs eventually abandoned their efforts to certify either a plaintiff or

defendant class. Thereafter, through a series of supplemental and amending petitions,

the matter proceeded as a cumulation of individual actions comprising the claims of

approximately 72 individual crawfish buyers, resellers, and processors.

Bayer filed an exception of no cause of action, contending in order to maintain

a delictual action against a manufacturer for property damage caused by a defective

product, the claimants must have some proprietary interest in the damaged property.

Bayer argued that since none of the plaintiffs in this litigation are crawfish farmers,

and none of them had any ownership in the damaged crop, they could not demonstrate

the required proprietary interest. Plaintiffs argued there were existing joint ventures

between the crawfish farmers and buyers/processors during the time the crawfish crop

was damaged. The trial court overruled the exception, rejecting the per se

exclusionary/proprietary interest rule of Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275

U.S. 303, 48 S.Ct. 134 (1927), in favor of the policy driven duty/risk analysis

-2-

espoused in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Bean Dredging, 447 So.2d 1058 (La.1984). The

trial court found in applying a duty-risk analysis, the law extended a remedy to the

buyer/processor plaintiffs. Bayer applied for writs to this Court. Writs were denied.

Because of the enormity of trying all 72 actions at once, the trial court

determined it would be best to try the actions of four plaintiffs, three to be chosen by

the plaintiffs and one chosen by the defense. This number was eventually reduced to

three plaintiffs: Patrick Phillips (d/b/a Phillips Seafood), James Bernard (d/b/a J.

Bernard Seafood Processors, Inc.), and Lisa Guidry (d/b/a Guidry’s Crawfish).

After a full trial on the merits, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Directed Verdict on

whether the Defendants’ duty extended to these buyer/processor plaintiffs. Finding

there was an “ease of association from farmer to wholesaler” such that farmers and

processors are “inextricably interwoven and symbiotic in their relationships,” the trial

court granted the Motion for Directed Verdict. The jury then returned a verdict in

favor of each of the three plaintiffs, assigning 94% fault or causation to Bayer, 1% to

Bayer salesman Michael Redlich, and 4% to the drought that occurred in South

Louisiana. It awarded $900,000 to plaintiff Phillips, $750,000 in damages to plaintiff

Bernard, and $100,000 to plaintiff Guidry.

Defendants timely filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict,

New Trial, and Remittitur. The motions were denied and Defendants filed an appeal

with this Court.

A five judge panel of this Court reversed the trial court’s directed verdict on

scope of duty and set aside the jury’s verdict. Phillips v. G & H Seed Co., 08-934

(La.App. 3 Cir. 4/8/09), 10 So.3d 339 (hereafter referred to as Phillips I). The

majority reasoned that since “the plaintiffs in this case failed to prove a proprietary

interest in the crawfish crop destroyed by the use of ICON. . . . the plaintiff’s cause

-3-

must fail.” Id. at 344. The majority did not undertake a duty-risk analysis or apply the

PPG factors as done by the trial court. Instead it applied the per se

exclusionary/proprietary interest rule of Robins Dry Dock. Plaintiffs also note the

majority did not explain what would be “sufficient” to establish a proprietary interest

under Louisiana law.

Judge Saunders dissented from the majority opinion, finding it contradicted the

Louisiana Supreme Court’s finding in 9 to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney, 538 So.2d 228,

234 (La. 1989), that “the PPG case abrogat[ed] the rule that flatly prohibited recovery

for intangible economic loss produced by negligent conduct.” Judge Saunders found

“the only conclusion a reasonable juror could reach was that Bayer had reckless

disregard for the potential ramifications to this state’s crawfish industry, as a whole,

when crawfish farmers used ICON.” Phillips I, 10 So.3d at 345. This callousness,

Judge Saunders concluded, was sufficient to support the trial court’s directed verdict

on scope of duty. Further, Judge Saunders noted that even if one interprets PPG as

the majority does, it was factually distinguishable from the present case. In PPG, the

plaintiff had an alternative source to get the natural gas it needed, whereas the

buyers/processors here had no other source for the crawfish they contracted to receive

from the crawfish farmers. This interwoven, symbiotic relationship between crawfish

farmers and crawfish buyers/processors was different than that present in PPG.

Plaintiffs’ Application for Rehearing to this Court was denied. Similarly, the

application for a Writ of Review to the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied. Phillips

v. G & H Seed Co., 09-1504 (La. 10/30/09), 21 So.3d 284. Following these denials,

Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment against all the remaining

buyer/processor plaintiffs based on the proprietary interest requirement espoused by

this Court’s opinion in Phillips I.

-4-

At the hearing on the summary judgment motions, Plaintiffs argued the duty-

risk analysis set forth in the PPG case was controlling in this case. Plaintiffs also

contended even if the trial court was compelled to enforce a proprietary interest

requirement pursuant to this Court’s decision in Phillips I, that term had never been

defined by our Supreme Court to require ownership to assert a claim for economic

damages. Plaintiffs complained they were at a loss to understand exactly what

material fact(s) were necessary to establish a level or degree of interest sufficient to

allow them to prevail. Nonetheless, in an attempt to meet this burden of proof,

Plaintiffs submitted numerous sworn affidavits attesting to the nature and extent of the

buyers/processors involvement in the Louisiana crawfish industry.

In oral reasons for judgment, the trial court voiced its disagreement with the

opinion in Phillips I. However, believing it was constrained by that ruling, the trial

court granted the motions for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining claims

of the buyer/processor plaintiffs.1

1
There was also a corollary federal action in the United States District Court, Western
District of Louisiana, Wiltz, et al. v. Bayer CropScience, et al., Docket No. 08-2024, which arises
from the exact same set of facts as the present case and concerns the same question regarding the
scope of the defendants’ duty. The Wiltz case previously came to this Court as an appeal from the
denial of a Motion to Intervene in Phillips. The Wiltz intervention in Phillips was ultimately denied
by this Court. See Phillips v. G & H Seed Co., 09-1102 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/10/10), 32 So.3d 1134,
writ denied, 10-822 (La. 6/18/10), 38 So.3d 325. The matter was then removed by the defendants
to federal court. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment on the alleged lack of
a proprietary interest in the plaintiffs. Much as the trial court did in the present case, the federal
district court judge granted the motion for summary judgment even though he did not believe a
bright line litmus test on proprietary interest was the correct law in Louisiana. The district judge
explained in detail why he felt compelled to grant the summary judgment:

MR. STEVENS (counsel for Plaintiffs): I would like this Court to rule that
the motions for summary judgment by the defendants based strictly on the proprietary
interest rule is denied because proprietary interest is not the law of the Louisiana
Supreme Court. In a products liability case, which must apply a duty/risk analysis
under controlling jurisprudence, it is particularly foreseeable that these folks would
be injured, therefore, they are within the scope of the duty of this defendant not to
negligently kill the crawfish crop that these folks spent 30 years helping to develop.
...

THE COURT: Then let me state this for the record. I agree with that
statement. However, if I do that, I’m going to get reversed by the Fifth Circuit. I
agree with it. I agree with everything you had to say.
I would also recommend to the Fifth Circuit, when you take your appeal, that

-5-

Plaintiffs have appealed the trial court’s granting of the summary judgment, and

assert the following assignments of error:

1. It was error to ignore the mandates of PPG and its progeny and not
employ a duty-risk/ease of association analysis which considers the scope
of Defendants’ duties in the context of moral, social and economic issues
involved and a view toward the ideal of justice.

2. It was error to require Plaintiffs to prove a “proprietary interest” in
the damages crawfish crops as a prerequisite to recovery in this tort suit
asserting claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act for breach of
express warranty, failure to warn and false representations.

3. If a proprietary interest is required (which is disputed), then the trial
court erred in applying Phillips I so as to require actual “ownership” in
order to establish such an interest contrary to Supreme Court
jurisprudence which clearly envisions an interest “derived from the
owner” (less than ownership but more than a mere guest or member of
the general public).

4. The trial court erred in granting summary judgments even against
those buyers/processors who presented issues of fact as to an actual
“ownership” interest in crawfish ponds from which they would have
supplied crawfish top their respective businesses, “but for” Defendants’
negligent acts and egregious conduct.

you ask them to certify this to the Supreme Court and they can get a final ruling on
this issue.
I agree with everything you have to say. I agree with all of it. I agree with Judge Hebert.

MR. STEVENS: The question is as a matter of law what is the law of the
Louisiana Supreme Court? Is it duty/risk analysis or is it proprietary interest? And
–

THE COURT: I think if I rule your way, I’m going to get reversed. I’m
inviting you to take it to the Fifth Circuit. My opinion is that you’re absolutely
correct. I do think they have a proprietary interest.

MR. STEVENS: Well, then –

THE COURT: Listen to me, Mr. Stevens.

MR. STEVENS: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: You know, I’m going to rule against you. What I’m trying
to do is give you some information so that when you take it up, you can say, you
know. Judge Haik did this because he got slapped on the wrist by the Court
pertaining to Taira Lynn. And I think he was wrong in doing that because that was
a maritime case and this belongs to Louisiana – this is a Louisiana driven cause of
action, not a maritime driven cause of action. Therefore, I think Judge Haik is
wrong. Okay?
So do that, Mr. Stevens. Do that

-6-

5. The trial court erred in granting summary judgments even against
those buyers/processors who demonstrated long standing, symbiotic
relationships with the farmers/fishermen and reasonable, recurring and
investment-based expectations of an economic interest in the annual
crawfish crops which, as a matter of law, made their damages particularly
foreseeable and established material issues as to the existence of a
sufficient interest to be worthy of legal protection.

6. The trial court committed manifest error by concluding that even the
claims of “hybrids” should be summarily dismissed because many of them had
“settled” their claims in a companion Class Action settlement in 2004 between these
Defendants and the farmer/fishermen group of claimants, even though the final
judgment in that matter expressly reserved the right of all settling farmers/fishermen
“to pursue their respective claims as buyers and/or processors of crawfish.”

Defendants contend that this Court’s previous decision in Phillips I has already

decided the legal issues raised in this appeal, and thus, the “Law of the Case” doctrine

applies.

ANALYSIS

A. Law of the Case Doctrine.

We will first address Defendants argument that this Court’s decision in Phillips

I is law of the case, and should not be revisited. For the following reasons, we do not

find the law of the case doctrine applicable here.

Generally, the law of the case doctrine applies to prior rulings of the appellate

court and an appeals court will not reconsider its own ruling in the same case. Gentry

v. Biddle, 05-61 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), 916 So.2d 347. However, the application

of this doctrine is discretionary and an appellate court may reconsider an issue if the

prior decision was “palpably erroneous or its application would result in manifest

injustice.” Id. at 352 (quoting Griggs v. Riverland Med. Ctr., 98-256, p. 6 (La.App.

3 Cir. 10/14/98), 722 So.2d 15, 19, writ denied, 99-385 (La.5/28/99), 735 So.2d 622.

We note that earlier in the procedural history of this case, Defendants filed an

exception of no cause of action asserting, for Plaintiffs to maintain a delictual action,

they must first demonstrate some proprietary interest in the damaged property. The

-7-

trial court overruled the exception, rejecting the per se exclusionary/proprietary

interest rule of Robins Dry Dock in favor of the policy driven duty/risk analysis set

forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in PPG Industries. A three member panel of

this Court unanimously denied writs, finding no error in the trial court’s decision.

However, on appeal a five-judge panel (with one dissenting judge) reached an

opposite conclusion, finding “the plaintiff's case [sic] must fail” because they “failed

to prove a proprietary interest in the crawfish crop.” Phillips I, 10 So.3d at 344.

Finding this Court’s previous rulings on this issue are equivocal, we choose not to

apply the law of the case doctrine.

B. Proprietary Interest.

We initially make the following observations at the outset of our discussion on

proprietary interest: (1) the trial court unquestionably based its ruling granting the

summary judgments solely on this Court’s prior decision in Phillips I, 10 So.3d 339;

(2) although the opinion in Phillips I, discussed PPG and the duty-risk method, it did

not engage in any such duty-risk analysis; instead it resurrected the bright-line litmus

test that required a proprietary interest in the damaged property that was abrogated in

PPG.

The issue in this case boils down to whether Louisiana will apply a bright-line

litmus test mandating proprietary interest in damaged property as a prerequisite to

recovery, or do Louisiana courts apply a multi-factor, policy-driven, duty-risk analysis

when determining the scope and extent of a defendant’s duties under the Louisiana

Products Liability Act for particularly foreseeable economic damages. Finding our

previous opinion in Phillips I failed to consider the instruction of the Louisiana

Supreme Court’s opinion in PPG, which directed that a duty-risk analysis should be

-8-

performed to determine the scope and extent of a particular defendant’s duties,2 we

decline to follow it, and instead adhere to the dictates of our state’s highest judicial

court. We find the course of action taken in Phillips I, can, in certain instances,

deprive an innocent person of any remedy for damage suffered in direct contrast to our

fundamental civil law principal that obliges a person to fully repair damage caused by

his fault. La.Civ.Code art. 2315.

Our review of the jurisprudence of this State indicates that the per se

exclusionary/proprietary interest rule illustrated in Robins Dry Dock, is not the law of

this state. Rather, a duty-risk analysis was adopted by the Louisiana Supreme Court

in PPG.

In PPG, the defendant’s dredging operations damaged a gas pipeline owned by

Texaco. Texaco had a contract to supply gas to PPG. As a result of the damage to the

pipeline, PPG was forced to obtain gas from other sources. PPG sued Bean Dredging,

seeking recovery of the additional costs expended to obtain gas. Although the

supreme court ultimately held PPG’s damages did not fall within the scope of the duty

not to damage a pipeline owned by Texaco, it did so after undertaking a duty-risk

analysis to determine whether that particular risk fell within the scope of the duty. The

court stated:

Policy considerations determine the reach of the rule, and there must be
an ease of association between the rule of conduct, the risk of injury, and
the loss sought to be recovered. Hill v. Lundin & Assoc., Inc., 260 La.
542, 256 So.2d 620 (1972). A judge, when determining whether the
interest of the party seeking recovery of damages is one that falls within
the intended protection of the rule of law whose violation gave rise to the
damages, should consider the particular case in the terms of the moral,

2
We are cognizant that the Supreme Court denied writs in Phillips I. However, even though
writs were denied, there was, of course, no discussion by the Supreme Court explaining the reasons
for the writ denial. In contrast, we have the Supreme Court opinion in PPG Industries, which as
Justice Dennis later noted in 9 to 5 Fashions, 538 So.2d at 234, “abrogat[ed] the rule that flatly
prohibited recovery for intangible economic loss produced by negligent conduct.” We choose this
day to follow the express dictates of PPG Industries rather than the implied message of a writ denial
in Phillips.

-9-

social and economic values involved, as well as with a view toward the
ideal of justice. See Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So.2d 1146 (La.1983).

PPG Indus., Inc., 447 So.2d at 1061.

The court in PPG did caution that a party who negligently causes injury to

property will not always be held legally responsible to all persons for all damages

flowing in a “but for” sequence, because the list of possible victims might be

“expanded indefinitely.” Thus, the court must “necessarily make a policy decision on

the limitation of recovery of damages.” Id. at 1061-62.

In his dissent in PPG, Justice Calogero “applaud[ed] the majority’s applying a

duty risk analysis in the consideration of tort recovery . . . and [in] abandoning the per

se exclusion of such damages which our courts have heretofore adopted on the heels

of Robins and Forcum-James [Co. v. Duke Transportation Co., 231 La. 953, 93 So.2d

228 (1957)].3

The cases since have consistently followed the duty-risk analysis set forth in

PPG. In Cleco Corp. v. Johnson, 01-175 (La. 9/18/01), 795 So.2d 302, a negligent

truck operator backed into a utility pole causing a power surge that ultimately caused

damages to the property of Cleco’s customers. Cleco then paid for the customers’

damages and filed suit to recover those payments. The supreme court examined

whether the law afforded Cleco’s customers a cause of action. The supreme court

utilized the case by case, duty-risk analysis set forth in PPG, and found that the law

extended a remedy to both Cleco and its customers. In her concurring opinion, Justice

Kimball specifically noted “[t]he majority today has chosen to handle these claims on

a case by case basis using the duty-risk analysis, which in my view is the preferable

approach.” Id. at 307. Even the dissent in Cleco did not question the majority’s

3
Justice Calogero dissented, not because of the implementation of a duty-risk analysis, but
rather because he disagreed with the majority’s determination that PPG’s economic loss, from added
fuel cost, was not a risk encompassed within the duty not to negligently injure Texaco’s pipelines.

-10-

decision to utilize a duty-risk analysis as set forth in PPG, but rather believed the duty

allegedly violated in that case did not encompass the particular risk of injury sustained

by Cleco and/or its customers.

The court in Cleco, cited with approval this Court’s decision in Istre v. Fidelity

Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 628 So.2d 1229 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993), writ denied, 634

So.2d 852 (La.1994). In Istre, a backhoe operator working for a construction company

came into contact with electrical lines causing a power outage that knocked out

electrical power to a traffic signal four miles away. Approximately one hour later, the

plaintiff was involved in an accident due to the traffic light outage. The plaintiff

subsequently filed suit against several parties, including the construction company.

After utilizing a duty-risk analysis, this Court found the construction company liable,

stating:

The construction company’s main argument is that its duty to
avoid knocking out electrical power does not extend to the risk that one
hour later, a driver at an intersection four miles away, will fail to see that
traffic lights are not working and that other drivers were treating the
intersection as a four-way stop, out of turn, and hurt another driver who
was entering the intersection in obedience to a four-way stop rotation.
To this it pleads that the company could not have known that engaging
this one power line would create a general outage affecting signal lights
four miles away.

We reject this argument. This backhoe operator knew the risk of
his backhoe knocking out power. His construction company knew or
should have known the risks to people and property caused by power
outages, and the predictability of widespread effects and delays in
restoring power. The increased risk of an accident caused by this
defendant’s conduct was still present when the accident occurred. This
accident to this plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. This defendant is
liable to the plaintiffs for the breach of its duty.

Id. at 1232.

As noted by Judge Saunders in his dissent in Phillips I, the supreme court in 9

to 5 Fashions, Inc. v. Spurney, 538 So.2d 228, 234 (La. 1989), specifically found that

“the PPG case abrogat[ed] the rule that flatly prohibited recovery for intangible

-11-

economic loss produced by negligent conduct.”

In Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032 (La.1991), the supreme court reiterated

that the extent of protection owed a particular plaintiff is determined on a case-by-case

basis to avoid making a defendant an insurer of all persons against all harms. The

Roberts court found that “[r]egardless if stated in terms of proximate cause, legal

cause, or duty, the scope of the duty inquiry is ultimately a question of policy as to

whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty.” Id. at 1044.

We also note the comments of several commentators, that have expressed both

the conclusion that PPG’s utilization of a case by case duty-risk analysis is the law in

Louisiana, and that it is the preferable approach. Justice Dennis, in his opinion in

Pitre v. Opelousas General Hospital, et al., 530 So.2d 1151, 1155-56, citing Prosser

and Keeton, stated:

The duty risk approach is most helpful, however, in cases where the only
issue is in reality whether the defendant stands in any relationship to the
plaintiff as to create any legally recognized obligation of conduct for the
plaintiff’s benefit.

Plaintiffs also call this Court’s attention to the following language from a

leading treatise on tort law in this state.:

Neither a blanket denial nor an unlimited approval of recovery is
appropriate. One of the fears is that allowing recovery may subject
defendants to liability for an indeterminate amount of damages to a
potentially indeterminate class of claimants. Another is that in some
cases, allowing recovery will result in double compensation because the
plaintiff has already protected himself from the risk of the economic
harm through contract, such as insurance, indemnity or the increased
price for his goods. Also, in some cases, the economic harm the plaintiff
suffers is an ordinary risk of the enterprise in which he is participating.
However, where none of these factors is justified, recovery should be
permitted. Thus a case-by-case analysis appears superior to the Robins
“no duty” rule.

Frank L. Maraist & Thomas C. Galligan, Louisiana Tort Law, § 5.09 (1996).

Our review of the jurisprudence establishes that the Louisiana Supreme Court

-12-

in PPG, and the cases that followed, abandoned the per se no duty rule espoused in

Robins Dry Dock and Forcum-James in favor of a duty-risk analysis. Rather than

“taking a mechanical approach to the unreasoned conclusion that the petition for

economic loss caused by negligent interference with contractual relations fails to state

a cause of action,” the supreme court concluded a more nuanced, case specific, duty-

risk analysis was preferable. PPG, 447 at 1061. PPG clearly shows the supreme

court did not intend to close the door to recovery for all claims of economic harm

arising out of damage to what is technically a third person’s property, i.e., “proprietary

interest.” It made such recovery available in certain circumstances for limited groups

of people with a special interest in or relationship with the damaged property, whose

damages were a particularly foreseeable result of the tortious conduct of the defendant.

Although the opinion in Phillips I discussed PPG and its utilization of a duty-risk

method of analysis, the court failed to perform any such duty-risk analysis, and instead

concluded the “plaintiffs’ cause must fail” because they failed to prove a proprietary

interest in the damaged property. Phillips I, 10 So.3d at 344. This was contrary to the

law.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s grant of the summary

judgments because a per se proprietary interest rule is not the law of Louisiana in a

products liability case. Our Louisiana Supreme Court in PPG Indus. Inc., 447 So.2d

1058, mandates a case specific duty-risk analysis be undertaken to determine the scope

and extent of the defendants duties in this case. As the trial court based its granting of

the summary judgments solely on this Court’s opinion in Phillips 1, we now reverse

and remand this case back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion. As this case is before us on grants of summary judgment, it is not appropriate

-13-

for this Court to determine or even speculate on the result of the required duty-risk

analysis. Our determination on this issue renders Plaintiffs’ other assignments of error

moot. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Defendant-Appellees.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

-14-

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-1405

PATRICK E. PHILLIPS, JR., ET AL.

VERSUS

G & H SEED CO., ET AL.

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, concurring for additional reasons.

I fully agree with the majority opinion. I add this brief comment to

provide an additional reason for reversal. While I do not agree that the proprietary

interest rule is the law in Louisiana, the plaintiffs did not attempt to prove proprietary

interest in Phillips I. This case is properly remanded to allow them to prove that

standard, if they choose to do so, as an additional supplement to a duty-risk analysis.