Case Name: Alex THIBO et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1977-05-20
Citations: 347 So. 2d 20
Docket Number: No. 5965
Parties: Alex THIBO et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before HOOD, CULPEPPER, WATSON, FORET and HEARD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 347
Pages: 20–23

Head Matter:
Alex THIBO et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 5965.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
May 20, 1977.
Rehearing Denied June 24, 1977.
W. Gerald Gaudet, of Voorhies & Labbe, Lafayette, Pugh, Buatt, Landry & Pugh, by L. G. Pugh, Jr., Crowley, for defendant-appellant.
Edwards, Stefanski & Barousse, by Homer E. Barousse, Jr., Crowley, Ronald J. Bertrand, Rayne, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOOD, CULPEPPER, WATSON, FORET and HEARD, JJ.

Opinion:
HEARD, Judge.
This is a suit for personal injuries sustained by Katherine Thibo, wife of Alex Thibo, while she was dressing Kevin Free-land, the minor 3-year-old child of Barton Freeland, Jr. The plaintiff, Katherine Thi-bo, was employed by the Barton Freelands as a cook and housekeeper, for the take-home wages of $53.00 per week. Her duties included taking care of the defendants' 3-year-old Mongoloid child, Kevin. The testimony revealed that Kevin is a strong, hyperactive child. The plaintiff testified he had to be watched constantly, and that she often had to chase and wrestle with him in the course of caring for him. On November 13, 1974, plaintiff was injured while attempting to dress the child. Kevin was standing on the bed and plaintiff was holding him with one hand, as usual, while reaching for his socks with the other. While plaintiff was off balance, Kevin jerked suddenly and plaintiff, an exceptionally large woman, was pulled sharply onto the bed. She stated she heard a "popping" sound and began to feel a pain in her back. Between November of 1974 and April of 1975, plaintiff visited several physicians, including a neurologist and an orthopedist. She was hospitalized for nine days, and was out of work for five months. At the time of trial, she was working as a cook at approximately the same pay she received before. She testified that she continues to suffer with her back. The trial court held that pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Turner v. Bucher, 308 So.2d 270 (La.1975), appellants were strictly liable for any injuries caused by the children at the home and granted judgment against the father and homeowner and Aetna Insurance Company as his homeowner's insurer. From this judgment defendants have appealed.
The contentions of appellants are (1) The trial court erred in holding that the rationale of Turner v. Bucher, supra, applied in this case, and (2) that plaintiff assumed the risk of the accident which was a natural and ordinary risk of her occupation.
The responsibility of the parents of minor children is set forth in C.C. Art. 2318, which states:
"The father, or after his decease, the mother, are responsible for the damage occasioned by their minor or unemanci-pated children, residing with them, or placed by them under the care of other persons, reserving to them recourse against those persons."
"The same responsibility attaches to the tutors of minors."
The Supreme Court held in Turner v. Bucher, supra, that under C.C. art. 2318, if the act of the child would be delictual if it were not for his age, the parent with whom he resides is legally at fault and therefore liable for the damage occasioned by the child's act. This liability may be escaped when the parent shows the harm was caused by the fault of the.victim, by the fault of a third person, or by a fortuitous event. The court further stated that its holding in that case was limited to a situation where the victim is unwarned and unsuspecting of any impending harm from the acts of a child.
In the case of Fontenot v. Soileau, 336 So.2d 1006 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1976), this court refused to apply the doctrine of strict liability imposed on the animal owners under Article 2321 and Holland v. Buckley, 305 So.2d 113 (La.1974). In this case, a child was injured when he was thrown from a horse while performing his duties as exercise boy. This court held that he had assumed the risk when he accepted employment as exercise boy, and that the harm suffered was encompassed by the ordinary risks of his occupation.
The plaintiff in this instant suit had been employed by the defendants for more than six months and part of her duties was caring for this Mongoloid child. She readily admitted that he was hyperactive and that she often had to wrestle with him and chase him about the house. When asked:
"Q. You had to wrestle with him every time?"
"A. Oh, yes, sir. Even to bathe him. You had to hold him in the tub, keep him from eating the soap . . . . He was happy and frisky all the time."
In the case of Turner v. Bucher, supra, the plaintiff was struck from the rear by the bicycle being ridden by the child. She had no knowledge of the child as he approached her on the bicycle. She was unwarned and unsuspecting of any impending harm from the child.
In the present case, the plaintiff knew of the propensities of the child and we find that the holding of Turner v. Bucher, supra, does not apply to these facts.
We find that the present case is governed by the holding in Fontenot v. Soileau, 336 So.2d 1006 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1976).
For the foregoing reasons, the holding of the trial court is reversed and set aside and that there is judgment in favor of the defendants, Aetna Insurance Company and Barton Freeland, Jr., and against Alex Thi-bo and his wife, Katherine Thibo, rejecting their demands. All costs of this appeal are assessed against plaintiffs-appellees.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
FORET and CULPEPPER, JJ., concur in the result.
WATSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.