Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consol. Government

• Decision Date: 13 September 1990
• Docket Number: No. 90-C-0298,90-C-0298
• Citation: 567 So.2d 1097
• Parties: Carl MONTEVILLE v. TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT. 567 So.2d 1097
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 1097

567 So.2d 1097

Carl MONTEVILLE v. TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT.

No. 90-C-0298.

567 So.2d 1097

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 13, 1990.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1990.

Joseph L. Waitz, Houma, for plaintiff/applicant.

Robert Peter Cuccia, Houma, for defendant/respondent.

DENNIS, Justice. ^*

We are called upon to decide whether a parish government may claim limited tort immunity under the Recreational Use Statutes, La.R.S. 9:2791 and 9:2795, as a shield against liability to a boatman who was injured by a premises defect in a boat ramp at the parish's 5.21 acre public boat launching and vehicle/trailer parking facility on La. Highway No. 56 and Bayou Petit Caillou in Terrebonne Parish. The trial court granted the parish summary judgment recognizing its immunity under the Recreational Use Statutes and dismissing plaintiff's suit. The court of appeal affirmed. Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Gov't, 554 So.2d 692 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989). We reverse. The Recreational Use Statutes were enacted to induce private owners of large acreages to open expanses of undeveloped lands for public outdoor, open land recreational purposes and may not be applied to immunize the state or its subdivisions from tort liability. Even if the premises in this case were owned by a private individual, it would not qualify as a large tract suitable for and opened for one of the recreational purposes specified by the Recreational Use Statutes. In any event, summary judgment was improperly granted because it was not shown that the boatman entered the premises for a recreational, rather than commercial or work-related, purpose.

Facts and Procedural Background

The undisputed facts established by the evidence filed in support of the motion for summary judgment are as follows. On the morning of July 10, 1985, Carl Monteville launched his boat from a trailer at the Cocodrie boat launching and vehicle/trailer parking facility, which is operated by the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government. One wheel of the trailer became caught in an underwater hole as he was pulling the trailer out of the water. Monteville tried to pull the trailer out of the hole by rapidly accelerating the truck, but this maneuver caused a sudden jerk of the vehicle as the wheel was pulled from the hole. As a result of this episode, Monteville suffered both property damage to his trailer and injuries to his back.

The accident occurred on a 5.21 acre tract of land leased by the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government for use as a public boat launch. The premises is located between La. Highway No. 56 and Bayou Petit Calliou, 22.1 miles from the corporate limits of the City of Houma. The premises includes a fisherman's landing store, a cement ramp and clam shell driveways and parking areas and is surrounded by several camps.

Monteville sued the parish government and its insurer, alleging that the parish's negligent maintenance of the boat launch caused his injuries. The parish government moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Recreational Use Statutes, La.R.S. 9:2791 and 9:2795, applied to absolve it of responsibility for any mere negligence in maintaining the facility. At the time of the accident, these statutes provided in pertinent parts:

A. 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 caused by any act of person to whom permission is granted.

B. This Section does not exclude any liability which would otherwise exist for deliberate and willful or malicious injury to persons or property, nor does it create any liability where such liability does not now exist. Furthermore the provisions of this Section shall not apply when the premises are used primarily for a commercial, recreational enterprise for profit; existing law governing such use is not changed by this Section.

C. The word "premises" as used in this Section includes lands, roads, waters, water courses, private ways and buildings, structures, machinery or equipment thereon.

La.R.S. 9:2791, as enacted by 1964 La.Acts No. 248, Secs. 1-3.

A. As used in this Section:

(1) "Land" means land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty.

(2) "Owner" means the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant or person in control of the premises.

(3) "Recreational purposes" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, trapping, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, horseback riding, bicycle riding, motorized vehicle operation for recreation purposes, nature study, water skiing, ice skating, sledding, snow mobiling, snow skiing, summer and winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.

(4) "Charge" means the admission price or fee asked in return for permission to use lands.

B. Except for willful or malicious failure to warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity, an owner of land, except an owner of commercial recreational developments or facilities, who permits with or without charge any person to use his land for recreational purposes as herein defined does not thereby:

(1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purposes.

(2) Constitute such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed.

(3) Incur liability for any injury to person or property incurred by such person.

La.R.S. 9:2795(A-B), as enacted by 1975 La.Acts. No. 615, Sec. 2.

Finding these statutes applicable, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. Monteville moved for a new trial, proffering evidence of willful or malicious failure to warn discovered after the rendition of the judgment. The motion for new trial was denied.

Monteville appealed, and the court of appeal affirmed. Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Gov't, 554 So.2d 692 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989). We granted Monteville's writ application. 559 So.2d 1354 (La.1990).

I. Statutory Interpretation Principles

The Recreational Use Statutes, La.R.S. 9:2791 and 2795, are laws on the same subject and must be interpreted in reference to each other. La.C.C. art. 13 (1988); Keelen v. State Dept. of Culture and Recreation, 463 So.2d 1287 (La.1985).

The Recreational Use Statutes are in derogation of common or natural right and, therefore, are to be strictly interpreted, and must not be extended beyond their obvious meaning. Keelen v. State Department of Culture and Recreation, 463 So.2d 1287 (La.1985); see also G.I. Joe, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., 561 So.2d 62 (La.1990); Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Triple R Contractors, 345 So.2d 7 (1977); Lamar Life Ins. Co. v. Babin, 246 La. 19, 163 So.2d 81 (1964); Charles Tolmas, Inc. v. Police Jury, 231 La. 1, 90 So.2d 65 (1956); Cendon v. H.G. Hill Stores, 171 La. 341, 131 So. 41 (1930); City of Crowley v. Duson, 147 La. 520, 85 So. 226 (1920). The rule that statutes in derogation of natural or common right are to be strictly interpreted is now generally recognized as being a corollary of the rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be interpreted strictly. See Strother v. Lucas, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 410, 9 L.Ed. 1137 (1838); Peters v. Hajacos, 91 W.Va. 88, 112 S.E. 233 (1922); Million v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 95 Ind.App. 628, 172 N.E. 569 (1930); United States v. Dixie Carriers, Inc., 462 F.Supp. 1126 (E.D.La.1978), aff'd 627 F.2d 736 (5th Cir.1980); See also Ketteringham v. Eureka Homestead Society, 140 La. 176, 72 So. 916 (1916). This rule is so well settled that it must be presumed that the legislature acted with full knowledge of the strict interpretation of statutes of this nature. O'Connor v. Smith, 188 Va. 214, 49 S.E.2d 310 (1948). The great majority of courts in other states interpreting recreational use statutes have held that because the statutes are in derogation of the common law and because they limit the duties of landowners in the face of a general expansion of premises liability principles, they must be strictly construed. See, e.g., Boileau v. DeCecco, 125 N.J.Super. 263, 310 A.2d 497 (1973), aff'd per curiam, 65 N.J. 234, 323 A.2d 449 (1974); Harrison v. Middlesex Water Co., 80 N.J. 391, 403 A.2d 910 (1979); Copeland v. Larson, 46 Wis.2d 337, 174 N.W.2d 745 (1970); LePoidevin v. Wilson, 111 Wis.2d 116, 330 N.W.2d 555 (1983); Gibson v. Keith, 492 A.2d 241 (Del.1985); Arias v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 426 So.2d 1136 (Fla.App.1983); Walker v. City of Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206, 786 P.2d 1057 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989); Kucher v. County of Pierce, 24 Wash.App. 281, 600 P.2d 683 (1979); Page, The Law of Premises Liability, Sec. 5.14 at 117 (2d ed. 1988). For the purpose of this rule, "common law" should be understood to carry its broadest meaning, i.e., the existing body of law, rather than the narrower definition of an ancient body of Anglo-American judge-made principles. 3 Sutherland Stat. Const. Sec. 61.01 at p. 78 (4th ed. 1986). Accordingly, where there is any doubt about the intent or meaning of laws in derogation of common law or common right, such as the Recreational Use Statutes, the statutes are given the effect which makes the least rather than the most change in the existing body of law. Id.; Shaw v. North Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 101...