Coleman Patrick Hanegan, III VS Elmer Litchfield, Sheriff and Ex-Officio Tax Collector, East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Department, Deputy Chris Lechuga, Deputy Michael Birdwell, ABC Insurance Company, Karl Dummons, GMAC Insurance Company, d/b/a National General Assurance Company, Cre

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 0837 COLEMAN PATRICK HANEGAN III J It VERSUS ELMER LITCHFIELD SHERIFF AND EX OFFICIO TAX COLLECTOR EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT DEPUTY CHRIS LECHUGA DEPUTY MICHAEL BIRDWELL ABC INSURANCE COMPANY KARL DUMMONS GMAC INSURANCE COMP ANY B D A NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY CREEKWOOD PROPERTY CORPORA TION D B A CYPRESS LAKE APARTMENTS AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY DATE OF JUDGMENT December 21 2007 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 529 880 E 23 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE WILLIAM A MORVANT JUDGE DeVan Pardue Springfield Cyrus Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Louisiana J Greco Rouge Hanegan Counsel for Defendant William H L Kaufman Baton Coleman Patrick Louisiana Appellee Sheriff Elmer Litchfield Cpl A Christopher Lechuga and Deputy Michael W Birdwell BEFORE Disposition AFFIRMED III P ARRO KUHN AND DOWNING JJ KUHN 1 Plaintiff III appellant Coleman Patrick Hanegan appeals the trial cOUli s grant of SUlTIlllary judgment in favor of defendants East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Elmer Litchfield the Birdwell against them for prior appeal Hanegan urges that advising him to sit which thereby placed constituted excessive force To establish plaintiff 5 2 damages 1225 he is Boykin a motor vehicle driven by dismissal of his claims He asselis that the actions of on a s in Lechuga subsequent path issues outstanding restraining curb while Birdwell conducted him in the against a him in search of his of Dummons vehicle precluding SUlTIlnary judgment duty La v by 3 cause in fact Transit Co causation legal 4 96 1932 p duty of 1 must prove 8 La 3 4 98 to care scope the and 707 So 2d 1230 A means the trial cOUli negligence the plaintiff breach of the struck was elToneous fact about whether handcuffs and was law We affirm the law enforcement defendants vehicle he to atTest defendant Karl DUlTIlnons of material his claims personal injuries arising when during Hanegan s detention by enforcement officials On dismissing the law enforcement defendants collectively W Christopher Lechuga and Deputy Michael A Sheriff Cpl police officer owes a that the officer must do only liable for subjected Griffis City of Berwick universal v a duty to his celiain category of risks Travelers Ins Co on to the save But this him from hann only what is reasonable under the circumstances and 417 So 2d 48 50 La legal duty prisoner to which his La 1973 273 So 2d 523 526 App 1 st Cir 1982 pati of a defendant in 2 a prisoner Garrison There is also negligence case to may be an v almost confonn to the standard of conduct of reasonable person in like circumstances a Dickerson 99 1046 p 7 La 119 00 The legal causation questions whether by the rule La the imposed There is duty inquiry is no the court the rule for ultimately within the scope of the relationship scope of the a at 1054 State Dep 9 9 97 t Roberts duty Id one as to whether the the harm which befell the in by the cause is engaged The determination of legal a defendant Services risk falls plaintiff easily See Roberts 605 Todd 96 3090 p 6 v La 699 So 2d 35 39 adjacent to the Lechuga observed rear of umnarked unit rate of a speed had been s while where an patrolling Lechuga the law an Ryder As enforcement apmiment complex attempted burglary vehicle between two with siren and in trucks in had a occuned small field Lechuga passed in his grill flashing lights Hanegan took off at activated his siren and lights and pursued Hanegan speed of travel Ultimately Hanegan stopped his vehicle in front apmiment complex s Illinois driver building a m complex and Exchequer Drive equipped who increased his at 2 15 Hanegan s between the apmiment of the 1044 duty risk a purely legal question of Social Services Office of Community defendants established that high there is detennining whether Through the affidavits of Lechuga and Birdwell a particular In s encompassed Id The scope of i should ask duty exists and of the risks the scope of duty question of policy duty assumes a Benoit 605 So 2d 1032 v v 916 duty inquiry detennining associated with the type of conduct S02d 912 injury the plaintiff suffered is of law that 1991 or 2d So 754 Joseph license drinking entrance gate exited and identified himself with his Hanegan appeared alcohol intoxicated to Birdwell anived J on the Lechuga scene and and admitted he spotted a pistol magazme and several vehicle spent shell casmgs Hanegan advised that a compmiment and gave Birdwell the on 45 caliber floorboard of rear handgun located in the was search his vehicle consent to Hanegan s glove Lechuga placed Hanegan in handcuffs advised him of his Miranda rights and directed him to sit on the curb next to the umnarked unit With two blocking the the apartment entrance to umnarked unit struck police patrol units whose overhead lights marked next to Hanegan Dummons drove his vehicle oundings deputies nevertheless requested sun EMS to Hanegan s condition Hanegan initially refused but arrest for to body aches and who cited was advised he had his EMS returned to the by deputies In his room to by seen without a Hanegan sitting striking offered only the same scene vehicle on of Dmmnons subsequently the curb he thought him affidavits of motion Lechuga for smmnary and Birdwell the report showing the charges filed against Hanegan and Dummons and the nolo contendere fireann 1 he had J request of deputies operation of and check scene Hanegan complained the law enforcement defendants opposition judgment Hanegan an est drive at the scene of his aware and EMS left the while intoxicated with reckless deputies that although enough driving treatment the curb and over to the come activated in front of his complex while Lechuga stood Although Hanegan remained conscious and Hanegan subsequent were by plea Hanegan a entered into for the convicted felon charge Specifically Hanegan of possession of an illegal did not offer another version of of the summary judgment which dismissed Hanegan s claims against the law enforcement defendants alleging they failed to provide him with medical assistance has not been the affidavits of the law enforcement defendants established that medical That pOliion appealed assistance Clearly provided was counter these statements and Hanegan did not offer Thus the dismissal of that 4 an affidavit pOliion or other admissible evidence to of Hanegan s petition was con ect the facts in affidavits of his judgment when as own Thus it is for appropriate here the facts have been by the law enforcement defendants Given these facts any as a duty Lechuga and Birdwell owed curb see a reasonable secured person to police officers sitting there expect by police a police officer in the manner easily associated with the curb in an area secured Since the actions of suspect Hanegan s injuries defendants were have had any The entitled So 2d 969 totality would driver would a lights were a motorist proceed were well along the It is not driving by an area cautiously a moving handcuffed suspect a officer as an up personal injuries by an save bypass activated other than directing to person striking that and Birdwell standing the not next to legal cause the of concluded that the law enforcement judgment insofar as the police of force when necessary to make an La 1977 use unreasonable injuries or which result arrest is a officers may against those of ordinary Kyle v case they and City of New their Orleans 353 depends upon the A comi must evaluate the prudent and reasonable 5 legitimate police excessive force Whether the force used is reasonable of the facts and circumstances in each officers actions Hanegan the hann he encountered save liable for any 972 by police with correctly to Hanegan from duty to use are drive action of police to summary function But if the officers employer to anticipate that Lechuga the trial comi showing made visibly present drive do not find that the harm of sustaining vehicle is on a to described we sit were and continue Likewise to whose by police in which two patrol units third umnarked unit and and See La C C P mi 966C him from hann did not include the unforeseeable risk that secured smmnary clearly established by affidavits who bears the burden of proof at trial failed to counter the Hanegan area disposition by men placed in the position same as the officers and with the same knowledge Id at the officers as 973 Under the established acted undisputed facts of this reasonably Hanegan who admitted that these events was placed And since he undeliaken already attempted him restraining in visible view of um easonable to was evade reasons we find judgment dismissing Hanegan s in ensure a as a conclude the officers drinking at the time search of his vehicle of was the influence of alcohol and had we cannot limitation say that his on the act mobility of was 2 F or these The trial police law enforcement to we he had been admittedly under with handcuffs case court s no error claims by the trial cOUli in against granting sUlllinary the law enforcement defendants judgment is affirmed by this memorandum opinion which is issued compliance with Coleman Patrick La U R C A Rule 2 Hanegan lB 16 Appeal costs are assessed against III AFFIRMED 2 It is only would have See Barlow officers hindsight that Hanegan can suggest the better action for police to have undeliaken been to place him in a patrol car But this is not necessarily a fail safe action either with v were City of New Orleans 257 La 91 241 So 2d 501 1970 holding that the atTesting negligent in leaving an intoxicated man in locked police car in the absence of an emergency 6

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.