Jennifer Elizabeth Lee, Wife of and Craig Allen Lee VS Pearl River Basin Land and Development Company, LLC, The State of Lousiana, the Town of Pearl River, ABC Insurance Company, DEF Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT JENNIFER OF AND ELIZABETH CRAIG LEE, ALLEN WIFE 2017 NO. CW 0266 LEE VERSUS PEARL RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT THE STATE TOWN OF LAND COMPANY, OF AND LLC, LOUISIANA, PEARL RIVER, INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY INSURANCE COMPANY In State THE ABC Re: McCLENDON, GRANTED. court State' s") for 2: 30 known pump as the " bridge. owner and State it the or is garde Fisheries (" support forward material we were or sued the on has Lands factual bear asserting bottom of alleged custody direction, or Wildlife of and La. Code that on which Robinson, Civ. the State to light that the of the bridge the the owned structure. water is bottom a the that might the water See Lands, State not bottom, Moreover, We factual of then come issue even Nevertheless, water of 966D( 1). genuine of to situated. of at i. e. absence owned did establish fact on the issue of ownership. find art. bridge proof essential absence State the the P. the out Plaintiffs to the out elements Administrator Division. support of judgment, summary point more pointed burden the on to or claim slough Spencer with demonstrate the situated, water its Land & River, State the of unlit damages Basin is at Parish an for bridge the supervision, court only action. plaintiffs' State State on Pearl Department not the one State translate to ownership the will for the of to River of based through required the pump Louisiana Pearl vessel Tammany suit this In his head filed owner Louisiana his Town the as before was claim for bottom of the negligence State issue that Affidavit for the support plaintiffs' believe bridge, the of waterway the it liability, factual Jennifer struck the LDWF"). the on he wife liable and the Because trial a when his liability. on the whether Louisiana' s (" operating in St. waterway L. L. C., strictly through control on is court of was property on which Louisiana. Plaintiffs of of Lee, the of slough pump and Company, alleged the m. developer the Development that a. this judgment Allen slough" Plaintiff against Baton East of JJ. State the summary Craig approximately writs, supervisory Parish WELCH, before denied properly motion Court, AND issue At plaintiff matter, for applying District 620, 406. No. McDONALD, trial DEC 13 2017 Judicial Rouge, WRIT XYZ Louisiana, of 19th BEFORE: DEF AND this does of if not impose a duty on plaintiffs pump slough cannot or the waterway itself is defective. Additionally, in the negligence bridge, we against do the not find State. that plaintiffs Because the State have does a claim not the plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the own STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 2017CW0266 Page which property or custody, direction, damage the caused through garde in was the State' s the of exercise 2 care, supervision, largely rely on the testimony that they were familiar with the bridge and aware of the fact that it was unlit, thus posing a danger to the boating public. Our review of their testimony reveals that these agents, in fact, had very little familiarity of the much been establish less actual defect, lighting had to agents bridge, purported Plaintiffs control. LDWF three with or or constructive since particularly notice of the these of none pump slough by vessel at night prior to the accident in question. Although we are aware that custody or of garde a can form for fault in basis negligence the thing agents to the we under a duty -risk analysis, forward fact material did Neither fact factual with Further, the State' s plaintiffs to as to as is the bridge. the simply plaintiffs custody or a a garde that of not of the bridge. of from the State come issue issue genuine evidence did genuine benefitted State no that establish establish the whether there find to support material bridge. employees used plaintiffs, to Accordingly, we conclude the State owed no duty to by way of inter -agency reporting or otherwise, protect novo the Louisiana' s reversed, the against review, plaintiffs ruling the against of court trial State of Louisiana after de the State liability of Therefore, suffered. denying on judgment summary is granted dismissing motion the they the for motion and harm with the claims is of prejudice. JMM JEW McClendon, J., concurs. After defendant, the State Louisiana, factual for support plaintiffs' factual claims, support custody, of control to or one and prove garde de or novo more plaintiffs that of the the DE OF APPEAL, UTY FOR CLERK THE FIRST OF CIRCUIT COURT COURT conclude the out elements not State unlit State has no liability in this matter. COURT did I review, pointed come essential forward of to with or had Accordingly, the either bridge. that absence owned
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.
