Summary
The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment granting immunity to Arkansas National Guard members and an insurer under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 29:735. The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether the defendants were engaged in emergency preparedness or recovery activities and whether their conduct in blocking a highway constituted willful misconduct. The matter was remanded for further proceedings, with costs assessed against the defendants.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper on defendants' claim of immunity under La. R.S. 29:735.
- Whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether defendants were engaged in homeland security, emergency preparedness, or recovery activities at the time of the collision.
- Whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether defendants' conduct constituted willful misconduct sufficient to defeat statutory immunity.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact remained concerning defendants' entitlement to immunity under La. R.S. 29:735 and whether the willful-misconduct exception applied.
- Conduct may constitute willful misconduct when it exhibits an active desire to cause harm or callous indifference to the risk of potential harm through flagrantly bad conduct; the evidence created a fact issue as to whether the convoy's highway obstruction met that standard.
- The court stated that immunity applies when the defendant is an agent of the state, engaged in an emergency preparedness activity, and complying with the regulations of the Emergency Act; whether those conditions were satisfied remained disputed.
Key quotations
“the willful misconduct exception under La. R.S. 29:735 will not apply if a Defendant is engaged in an “emergency preparedness activity” and will be afforded immunity from tort liability if the Defendant was (1) an agent of the State, (2) had engaged in an emergency preparedness activity, and (3) complied with the regulations of the Emergency Act.” (at 9)
“Further, we find that genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendants’ actions of blocking a major highway with camouflaged vehicles, in the predawn hours, with the headlights of the vehicles facing away from oncoming traffic, constituted willful misconduct.” (at 9)
“For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. We remand this matter for further proceedings.” (at 10)
Factual background
An Arkansas National Guard unit was deployed to Louisiana after Hurricane Ida to assist with emergency recovery activities, including clearing trees from public roads. While returning in a convoy to Arkansas, defendants' vehicles stopped near the closed entrance to Camp Minden in the predawn hours and temporarily blocked eastbound lanes of U.S. Highway 80. Bowman collided with a Humvee and trailer, asserting that the convoy's configuration, lighting, spacing, and lack of warnings created a hazardous obstruction.
Procedural history
Bowman sued National Guard members and an insurer, alleging gross negligence or willful misconduct arising from a collision with military convoy vehicles blocking U.S. Highway 80. After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act. The Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court granted summary judgment, concluding that defendants' conduct did not constitute willful misconduct. The court of appeal reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct further proceedings on the factual issues concerning whether defendants were engaged in covered emergency preparedness or recovery activities, whether they complied with applicable regulations, and whether their conduct constituted willful misconduct defeating immunity.