A malfunctioning gate at a valet lot led to a severe injury and a complex legal battle, now culminating in an appellate court's decision. On August 5, 2024, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit of Louisiana granted Bohnenstiehl Electric, Inc.'s writ application but denied relief concerning a July 3, 2024 judgment by the Civil District Court of Orleans Parish.
The case began on October 13, 2018, when Brittany Cavet was injured by a falling gate at Maison St. Charles, LLC's valet lot. Cavet filed a Petition for Damages on September 6, 2019, alleging that her injuries were solely due to Maison St. Charles' negligence. Four years later, on September 29, 2023, Maison St. Charles filed a Third Party Demand against Bohnenstiehl Electric and its unknown insurance carrier. They claimed that Bohnenstiehl Electric had been contracted to repair the gate on October 1, 2018 and failed to perform the work adequately.
Maison St. Charles argued that Bohnenstiehl Electric's negligence contributed to Cavet's injuries because they did not perform their work "in a good, workmanlike manner" and failed to identify defects in the valet lot gate. If found liable to Cavet, Maison St. Charles sought indemnity and contribution from Bohnenstiehl Electric.
Bohnenstiehl Electric responded with an Exception of Prematurity and an Exception of No Cause of Action on January 26, 2024. The district court denied these exceptions on July 3, prompting Bohnenstiehl Electric to seek supervisory review on July 12 and file a writ application on July 18.
The appellate court reviewed the case de novo under the standard set forth in Watkin’ Bakin’ L.L.C. v. Rabalais (23-0432). The function of an exception of no cause of action is "to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged." The court noted that all well-pleaded allegations must be accepted as true when considering such exceptions.
Relator Bohnenstiehl Electric cited Bellard v. ATK Construction (22-01715) as precedent for their argument that Maison St. Charles could not claim tort indemnity based solely on their own fault. In Bellard, it was established that indemnity arises only where liability is constructive or derivative and not based solely on one's own fault.
However, Justice Hughes' concurrence in Bellard suggested that while tort indemnity might not apply if both parties share fault, separate claims like breach of contract could still be validly pursued if adequately pleaded.
In this case, Plaintiff Cavet’s allegations against Maison St. Charles were found not solely constructive or derivative; thus comparative fault would apply during trial proceedings. This meant Maison St. Charles could not claim tort indemnity against Bohnenstiehl Electric simultaneously.
Despite denying relief for tort indemnity claims due to comparative fault principles established in Bellard v ATK Construction LLC., The appellate court recognized potential validity within Respondent’s breach-of-contract claims given operative facts distinctly separate from those underpinning tort-indemnity assertions.
Honorable D.Nicole Sheppard presided over initial civil district proceedings under Case ID NO:2019-09372 Division “J”.