Alfred Norred, Jr. VS Honorable Sheriff Elmer Litchfield, Sheriff and East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 2156 ALFRED NORRED JR VERSUS HONORABLE ELMER LITCHFIELD SHERIFF AND EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SHERIFF S OFFICE Judgment On Appeal rendered from the Parish of East Baton November 2 2007 19th Judicial District Court Rouge Suit Number 525293 The Honorable J if J tJ State of Louisiana Section 26 Kay Bates Judge Presiding Kirk A Williams Counsel for Plaintiff Baker LA Alfred Norred Jr Ryan Rouge Counsel for Defendants Appellees N Ours Baton Appellant LA BEFORE Honorable Elmer Litchfield et al PARRO KUHN AND DOWNING JJ DOWNING J Alfred NOlTed appeals Jr a Sheriff of East Baton Litchfield For the capacity following summary in favor of Elmer judgment 1 Rouge Parish Louisiana reasons we affirm the in his official of the trial judgment court Mr Norred Baton Parish Rouge condition he was injured negligence legal that he did not medical that his subsequently parish medical department provide alleges care to the filed a its duty no contents to the that while he source caused were capacity of oxygen as by the 2 sheriff Rouge He further asserted that he did not prisoners and toward Mr NOlTed East motion for summary judgment that his office is not personal knowledge supported these assertions he had alleges damages An affidavit from Sheriff Litchfield provider He and did not control the East Baton own or prisoner in the 2003 and that because of his medical fault of Sheriff Litchfield in his Sheriff Litchfield asserting was a examination bed close an He that he continuous oxygen receiving himself or petition prison in October he fell off sleeping and was in his alleges regarding a medical personally based He on his argued therefore that his medical treatment or the bed from which Mr NOlTed fell Ruling in favor of Sheriff Litchfield responsibilities or providing medical Mr NOlTed summarized I The petition status 2d So being 665 as also well settled law 2 did not include care now follows purportedly however that The trial Sheriff court the trial 1 East Baton s sure entered judgment v elTed in adequately accordingly Rouge Parish Sheriffs not a Bonneville Ins granting Office legal entity capable Co elTor summary defendant a of 96 1382 pp 4 5 It is sued sLlch being La 3 7 97 691 668 of Baton Rouge Parish of East Baton Rouge and their mayor deiendants but they were not parties to the summary judgment at issue The found that his that the bed worked court Department is reserved for the Sheri ff Valentine court asserting three assignments of appeals made the a making the trial City 2 president were added as judgment grounds that Sheriff Litchfield is the on responsible for the damages he suffered ed by misinterpreting en Litchfield is not medical unit Litchfield court while responsible from harm owe a Conerly to duty not harm after added prison So 2d 665 to care through protect inmates the Louisiana State ex the record himself reI Jackson nothing in qualities defect or judgment Mr The affidavit fails duty use cause however cause reasonable to qualified by to anticipate care 3 App is in La a the preventing Emphasis it anticipate 95 2294 p La 4 8 96 672 or affidavit filed in connection with his s any other admissible evidence filed into danger deputies to out describe any obvious on had any reasonable of his bed and harm quality notice that it or defect in the was dangerous 3 allegations about the dimensions and characteristics of the bed none why they might make the bed defective or unreasonably dangerous are affidavit in opposition to Sheriff Litchfield s motion for summary judgment Nor petition s s Noned would fall deputies should have been of the bed asserted in Mr Norred a to Phelps v Mr Non ed anticipate that While the unverified is duty suggests that Sheriff Litchfield bed such that the of these a have reasonable motion for summary to This 645 9 p 667 Here cause Sheriff arguments misapprehend the law s State of Louisiana v authorities have they State Sheriff safety penal authorities have reasonable that penal court that under the recognizing exercise reasonable to 858 So 2d 636 1 Cir 6 27 03 harm that mean custodian of the as of law the trial Penitentiary and the Department of Corrections 02 1852 requirement matter of the inmates he sends to the ed in s a provides and Sheriff Litchfield generally acknowledges that authorities prison et seq en for Noned We conclude that Mr Non ed Our law care acting as in the medical unit 2 15 702 for the the trial present was R S responsible and 3 circumstances La not makes or asserted in any other affidavit or admissible evidence 3 Nor does Mr training or Norred that to nothing in were deputies had s specialized s fall potential s affidavit suggests that the At best Mr Norred care any deputies affidavit suggests present and guarding him in the medical unit helping they could La Regarding R S correctional institutions provision statutes reveals no we note that Mr note that Mr no product on merit in this statutes governmg pnsons Norred were points violated to no Except as specific Sheriff Litchfield than is stated above argument making under La C C mi This subsection provided and Our review of these a claim for damages ansmg 23174 against Sheriff Litchfield Norred has failed to offer facts necessary for him under La R S 9 2800C Section alleges Mr Norred may be as defective greater duty find we Insofar a 15 702 et seq of these statutes that he Accordingly we Mr Norred exercise reasonable deputies where from affidavit suggest the knowledge that would aleli them of Mr Norred Further failed s to prevail provides for in Subsections A and B of this person shall have a cause of action based solely upon liability imposed under Civil Code Article 2317 against a public entity for damages caused by the condition of things no custody unless the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the particular vice or defect which caused the damage prior to the occurrence and the public entity has had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect and has within its failed to care do so Mr Norred Sheriff Litchfield 4 and s s affidavit does not assert that the custody As discussed above offending there is no bed was evidence that mt 2317 provides responsible not only for the damage occasioned by our own act but for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom we are answerable or of the things which we have in our custody This however is to be understood with the following Louisiana Civil Code We are modifications Louisiana Civil Code art 2317 1 provides thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its ruin vice or defect only upon a showing that he knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known ofthe ruin vice or defect which caused the damage that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care Nothing in this Article shall preclude the COUlt iiom the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case The owner or custodian of a 4 in Sheriff Litchfield s particular vice defect or In fact occurrence had deputies no or defect is that Sheriff Litchfield had any and failed to do Wain is no evidence Sheriff Litchfield under Louisiana civil law peril he do can has the so Norred offers To needed was prevail only to 06 0165 in imminent out point evidentiary burden 5 This Beach La App 5 26 06 La an v of s claim paragraph provides as Even La C C P Norred would be able The burden of proof remains with the movant However at proof summary judgment the trial on the matter movant s burden or if the the motion does not to produce satisfy his Accordingly no movant on require to will not bear the motion him to negate for all essential elements ofthe adverse paIiy s claim action or defense but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence offactual support for one or more elements essential fails to to the adverse s claim action or defense Thereafter if the adverse party paIiy factual suppOli sufficient to establish that he will be able to evidentiary burden of proof at trial there is no genuine issue of material fact produce 5 more He has court did not that is before the COUlt on so 5 966C 2 art to Mr one follows the burden of Mr so knew at any time support for And the trial issue of material fact exists 917 So 2d judgment Sheriff Litchfield He did not do this at trial Elec Coupee 11 16 05 deputies when offhis bed before he did absence of factual to establish that he proof Further dangers 930 So 2d 21 peril of falling s Pointe 1 Cir Therefore the burden then shifted factual support sufficient genuine of known imminent its motion for summary on essential element of Mr Norred done this warn risk personal duty person who observes that another is in a evidence that SheriffLitchfield no that Mr Norred precepts a But there deputies knew of any such risk s 04 2255 pp 4 5 writ denied 558 to its defect possible any falling off the bed while asleep slight duty to without Membership Corp 556 remedy to argument that Sheriff Litchfield had s Mr Norred of the risk of obvious damage prior Nor is there any evidence alleged opportunity of any so We also note Mr Norred to constructive notice or have caused the to alleged vice actual satisfY his err in granting summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Litchfield See La C C P art 966B Concluding that Mr Norred we affinn the judgment s assignments of error are without merit of the trial court DECREE For the Costs of this foregoing appeal are reasons we assessed affirm the judgment against Alfred Norred AFFIRMED 6 Jr of the trial court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
