STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE HUGHES AND DEIDRA

HUGHES

VERSUS

HENRY JENKINS, JR., 

REPLACEMENT PARTS INC., 

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

CO., AND LOUISIANA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

AND CORRECTIONS

NO. 2024 cw 0006

PAGE 1 OF 2

MAY 17, 2024

In Re: The State of Louisiana, through the Department of

Public Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police, 

and Trooper Austin B. Douglas, applying for

supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, 

Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 704108. 

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, THERIOT, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

STAY LIFTED; WRIT GRANTED. The trial court's December 19, 

2023 judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by

defendants, State of Louisiana, through the Department of Public

Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police, and Trooper

Austin Douglas ( collectively " DPS defendants"), is reversed. 

Plaintiffs, Lawrence Hughes and Deidra Hughes, allege Trooper

Douglas was negligent in directing traffic through an

intersection when Lawrence Hughes was in a utility bucket

repairing a traffic light signal. Plaintiffs allege Lawrence

Hughes suffered personal injuries when the utility bucket he was

riding in was struck by the driver of a tractor trailer, who was

directed through the intersection by Trooper Douglas. In their

motion for summary judgment, DPS defendants argued that Trooper

Douglas did not have a duty to monitor the height of the utility

bucket containing Lawrence Hughes. A threshold issue in any

negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a

duty. Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 99-1222 ( La. 11/30/99), 

752 So.2d 762, 766. Whether a duty is owed is a question of

law. Id. In deciding whether to impose a duty in a particular

case, the court must make a policy decision in light of the

unique facts and circumstances presented. Id. DPS defendants

provided evidence to establish that on March 11, 2020, Trooper

Douglas and another police officer, Sergeant Freddie D. Blair, 

were performing traffic detail as requested by Lawrence Hughes' 

employer, Diamond Electrical Company, Inc. (" DECO") . Trooper

Douglas and Sgt. Blair were instructed by DECO personnel to

direct traffic through a busy intersection because DECO needed

to turn off the traffic signals at the intersection. Trooper

Douglas and Sgt. Blair directed traffic for approximately three

hours without incident. Trooper Douglas, Sgt. Blair, and Jake

Laborde, a DECO employee who was present during the traffic

light repairs, stated in their respective depositions that other

tractor trailer trucks had travelled through the intersection

prior to Lawrence Hughes' accident without issue. Lawrence

Hughes testified in his deposition that a DECO employee was

supposed to act as a spotter for Hughes and alert him if a tall

truck was coming, but at the time of the accident he did not
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2024 CW 0006

PAGE 2 OF 2

have a spotter. Trooper Douglas was not informed by any DECO

employee that Lawrence Hughes had lowered his utility bucket and

Trooper Douglas stated that he was too busy directing traffic to

monitor DECO employees. We find the unique facts and

circumstances of this case do not warrant imposition of a duty

on Trooper Douglas to monitor the height of Lawrence Hughes' 

utility bucket. Additionally, although a law enforcement

officer has an affirmative duty to see that motorists are not

subjected to unreasonable risks of harm, Syrie v. Schilhab, 96-

1027 ( La. 5/20/97), 693 So.2d 1173, 1177, plaintiffs failed to

set forth sufficient summary judgment evidence to demonstrate

that Trooper Douglas was aware of an unreasonable risk of harm. 

Accordingly, DPS defendants' motion for summary judgment is

granted, and all claims asserted by plaintiffs, Lawrence Hughes

and Deidra Hughes, against the defendants, State of Louisiana, 

through the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office

of State Police, and Trooper Austin Douglas, are dismissed with

prejudice. 

Theriot, J., concurs. 

PMc

CHH

Welch and Miller, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. 

We concur with lifting the stay, but would deny the writ. The

legislature has given law enforcement officers the exclusive

power to regulate traffic and the public has a corresponding

obligation to follow traffic regulations. Law enforcement

officers are duty bound to exercise this power reasonably to

protect life and limb and to refrain from causing injury or

harm. Blair v. Tynes, 621 So.2d 591, 596 ( La. 1993). When a

law enforcement officer becomes aware of a dangerous traffic

situation, he has the affirmative duty to see that motorists are

not subjected to unreasonable risks of harm. Syrie v. Schilhab, 

96-1027 ( La. 5/20/97), 693 So.2d 1173, 1177. We find Trooper

Douglas, who was hired to direct traffic at the intersection

where the accident occurred, owed a duty to the plaintiff, 

Lawrence Hughes, to reasonably direct traffic to prevent injury

to Hughes. In our opinion, the question of whether Trooper

Douglas should have been aware of the height of Hughes' bucket

before directing the tractor trailer through the intersection is

a question of breach of a duty, which should be decided by the

trier of fact. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

FOR THE COURT