Opinion ID: 1954867
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: duty/risk analysis

Text: In Stevenson's first assignment of error, he argues that LeBlanc's injury was not caused by Stevenson's negligence. Stevenson also asserts that he did not breach a duty owed to LeBlanc, for he was only assisting a friend without compensation. Stevenson testified that LeBlanc was totally in charge of the towing operation, and LeBlanc supplied all the equipment and tools, except the Suburban, to complete the task. Stevenson further testified that one end of the Tug-em strap was on the ground when he entered his Suburban, and it is reasonable to infer that LeBlanc began to tie the strap after Stevenson walked away. Stevenson also suggests that the jury determined that Le-Blanc's attempt to connect the straps was the proximate cause of his injury and not the result of any actions on his part. Stevenson also argues that the jury's verdict was reasonable and should have not been disturbed by the court of appeal. Stevenson further argues that the court of appeal's ruling was based upon facts not supported by evidence, impermissible determinations, and impermissible substitutions of its own evaluation. Therefore, Stevenson concludes that the jury's determination that Stevenson was not at fault in causing LeBlanc's injury was not erroneous and should be reinstated. To establish liability in a negligence case under the duty-risk analysis, LeBlanc must prove that: 1) Stevenson owed a duty to LeBlanc, 2) the requisite duty was breached by Stevenson, 3) the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached, and 4) the conduct in question was a cause-infact of the resulting harm. Campbell v. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 94-1052 (La.1/17/95), 648 So.2d 898, 901; Mundy v. Department of Health and Human Resources, 620 So.2d 811 (La.1993). In the case sub judice, the evidence proves that Stevenson assumed a duty when his offer was accepted to assist in towing LeBlanc's truck out of the mud. Stevenson had a duty to perform this task in a safe and a reasonable manner. This duty was breached when Stevenson, as per his testimony, neither waited until LeBlanc signaled nor articulated his intent to move his vehicle. As correctly stated in Le-Blanc's brief even if Stevenson was merely realigning his Suburban, Stevenson was still negligent for failing to warn LeBlanc of his intentions. The court of appeal correctly stated that a failure to adhere to or obey protective instructions, such as an all-clear signal, in a situation where there is a possibility of causing great injury, is a breach of duty to protect. The evidence proves that Stevenson's failure to await the signal was a cause in fact of LeBlanc's injury. Stevenson acknowledged that before he entered his vehicle and after he entered and looked in his rearview mirror, he noticed LeBlanc crouched down, concentrating on tying the straps. Despite this, he still moved the Suburban. The evidence clearly established that Le-Blanc's finger would not have been traumatically amputated had Stevenson either made certain that LeBlanc was clear of the straps or gave or received a signal before moving the Suburban. We agree with the court of appeal in holding that the risk of harm which LeBlanc incurred can be easily associated with Stevenson's failure to act in a reasonable and prudent manner by not following protective instructions. Pursuant to Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032 (La.1991), a case that dealt heavily with the concept of legal cause, we find that the court of appeal did not err in finding Stevenson liable for LeBlanc's injury.