Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Landowner Liability

Applicability of Louisiana Recreational
Use Statutes Undetermined

Gaby R. Jabbour
National AgLaw Center Research Assistant

Summary of Decision

In LeBlanc v. Hayes, 827 So.2d 611 (La. Ct. App. 2002), the Louisiana Court of Appeal held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the Louisiana Recreational Use Statutes applied in an action brought by a hunter against the lessees of certain agricultural land.

Background

Plaintiff Glenn LeBlanc and his son hunted rabbits with dogs on property owned by Wanda Latiolais. See id. at 612. Latiolais leased a portion of her property to defendant Donald Stelly so that Stelly could raise rice and crawfish. See id. Stelly allowed defendant Lod Hayes to raise crawfish in a pond on the property. See id. While Leblanc and his son hunted on the property, their dogs ate fish parts located near a pond. See id. The dogs later became ill and one of the dogs died. See id. Methyl parathion, an agricultural pesticide, was subsequently discovered on the fish around the pond. Aldicarb, another pesticide, was also discovered on the fish parts removed from the stomach of the dog that had died. See id. at 612-13. LeBlanc brought an action against the defendants for damages. See id. at 613. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that they were not liable. The trial court granted the defendants' motion and Leblanc appealed the trial court's decision to the Louisiana Court of Appeal. See id.

Arguments

The defendants argued they were entitled to summary judgment because the Louisiana Recreational Use Statutes, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9:2791 and 9:2795, provided Stelly immunity from liability. See id. The plaintiffs argued that the Recreational Use Statutes were inapplicable and that Stelly was liable for Hayes' actions because the two had entered into a joint venture to farm crawfish. See id. at 612-13.

Analysis and Holding

The court explained that § 9:2791 provides that

An owner, lessee, or occupant of premises owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, sightseeing or boating or to give warning of any hazardous conditions, use of, structure or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purposes. If such an owner, lessee or occupant give permission to another to enter the premises for such recreational purposes he does not thereby extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purposes or constitute the person to whom permission is granted one to whom a duty of care is owed, or assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property causes by any act of person to whom permission is granted.

Id. (citation omitted).

The court explained that in Keelen v. State, Dep't of Culture, Recreation and Tourism, 463 So.2d 1287, 1290 (La. 1985), the Louisiana supreme court held that for a landowner to enjoy immunity under the Recreational Use Statutes "his property must be 'undeveloped, nonresidential rural or semi-rural land areas' and the injury-causing condition must be a condition normally found in the 'true outdoors.'" Id. It further explained that in Keelen the court stated that

The existence of some improvements on relatively undeveloped rural or semi-rural property does not change the character of the land so as to deprive its owner of the immunity granted by the statutes. Improvements such as shelters, toilet facilities, fireplaces, etc. are merely conveniences incidental to the use of the land for enumerated recreational activities and do not of themselves take property out of a rural, undeveloped classification.

Id.

The court stated that there is no indication that the property at issue "is anything other than rural farm land" and that "[t]he only improvements on the property were apparently made to facilitate the farming operations conducted on the property." Id. at 614.

The court next considered whether methyl parathion and aldicarb naturally occur in the "'true outdoors.'" Id. It explained that in Keelen it was stated that

[e]xamination of the characteristics of the land alone does not end the inquiry into whether the statutes apply to a particular factual situation. The injury-causing condition or instrumentality must also be scrutinized. Again, reference to the types of recreational activities specified in the statutes . . . indicated that the legislature envisioned immunity for landowners who offer their property for recreation that can be pursued in the "true outdoors." When the injury-causing condition or instrumentality is of the type normally encountered in the true outdoors, then the statutes provide immunity. Conversely, when the instrumentality, whether found in a urban or rural locale, is of the type usually found in someone's backyard, then the statutes afford no protection.

Id.

The court stated that in this case "there [was] an issue of material fact as to whether the 'injury-causing instrumentality,' methyl parathion and/or aldicarb, occur in the 'true outdoors.'" Id. It explained that "there [was] an indication that . . . Hayes did not use . . . the methyl parathion in accordance with the manufacturer's directions and that he used it in a manner for which it was not intended to be used." Id. The court therefore determined that there were unanswered questions that precluded summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. See id. at 615.

The case was decided on October 2, 2002; this summary was posted July 14, 2004.