Ray Domangue VS Deborah Falgout and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT RAY NO. DOMANGUE 2014 CW 0408 VERSUS DEBORAH FARM FALGOUT AND FIRE AND STATE CASUALTY COMPANY Deborah Falgout Company, In Re: applying District Court, GUIDRY, BEFORE: WRIT that Falgout and State and granting their HIGGINBOTHAM, trial for Farm judgment court's summary Fire is motion Farm Fire and 5, 2014 Company favor the 167138. of the suit JJ. judgment on behalf of Casualty dismissing Judicial AND DRAKE, February in Casualty No. CRAIN, judgment entered and and 32nd supervisory writs, Parish of Terrebonne, The GRANTED. State for McDONALD, denied the motion reversed and Deborah is hereby defendants, against Deborah Falgout and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Defendants, Company, which is camp to for immunity statute. as used owner's a to of the of enterprise profit immunity the provisions 2003-1488, ( La. the show Plaintiff to premises a and as qualified So. Ray owner. 2d 137, the the was burden to the It the camp is the underlying recreational availability See land immunity. evidence commercial the is Domangue, Falgout. not a Casualty exception any Deborah determines 874 Statutes Therefore, shown by and litigation applicable not premises 4/23/04), Use purposes. has Fire plaintiff, an facility that Farm in this Recreation recreational classification for State issue shown commercial use at the have plaintiff was and camp under defendants the shifted Falgout shown the covered Further, using Deborah have Richard of v. the Hall, rehearing denied, ( La. 6/25/04). Further, plaintiff malicious failure warn of action, a with Souza dangerous and knowingly is taken conscious v. 6/8/12), has St. not to warn shown a not connotes willful taken, indifference Tammany evidence dangerous condition deemed or of or which to Parish, the of a condition. a to when likely consequences 2011-2198 ( or conscious malicious would willful A failure La. course of action is cause injury, thereof. App. 1st 93 So.3d 745. JMG JMM EGO Higginbotham and Crain, COURT OF APPEAL, JJ, dissent and would deny the writ. FIRST CIRCUIT See Cir.
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.
