Opinion ID: 1152631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stipulation Pour Autrui?

Text: Mr. Broussard argues that the Damage Clause of the mineral lease contains a stipulation pour autrui enabling him to recover. The clause states that: The Lessee shall be responsible for all surface damages of the Lessor (emphasis added) caused by the Lessee's operations. A stipulation pour autrui exists when some advantage to a third person is created as a condition or consideration of a communtative contract. LSA-C.C. art. 1890 (West 1973) [Current version at LSA-CC 1978 (West 1985)]. In order to determine if a stipulation exists, we must look to the intention of the parties at the time the mineral lease was negotiated. This can best be accomplished by comparing the standard damage clause found in the original version of the mineral lease to the modified version agreed to by the parties. The unmodified version of the Damage Clause read as follows: The Lessee shall be responsible for all damages to timber and growing crops of Lessor caused by Lessee's operations. In negotiating the mineral lease the parties modified the phrase for all damages to timber and growing crops to read for all surface damages. However, they did not modify the mineral lease to expand Northcott's liability beyond the damages of the lessor. For this reason, we can easily distinguish Andrepont v. Acadia Drilling Co., 255 La. 347, 231 So.2d 347 (1969), and Hargroder v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., 290 So.2d 874 (La.1974). In Andrepont, supra, the standard clause set forth above was modified by deleting the phrase to timber and growing crops of Lessor. The resulting clause read: The Lessee shall be responsible for all damages (emphasis added) caused by Lessee's operations. It did not restrict liability to the damages suffered by the Lessor. The crop loss suffered by the farmer in Andrepont, supra, was clearly included within the all damages language allowing him to recover under the mineral lease. In Hargroder, supra, it was specified in the agreement that the defendant would pay for damages which may arise to growing crops. In both cases the intent to pay for crop damage was beyond question. For the reasons set forth above, the Court of Appeal was correct when it concluded that the mineral lease did not create a stipulation pour autrui in favor of Minos Broussard.