Opinion ID: 6330342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Louisiana Products Liability Act

Text: Our only issue is whether the district court erred when it held that Section 60 of the LPLA, which specifically applies to injuries resulting from discharge of a firearm, did not bar Seguin from bringing a claim under Section 56 of the LPLA, which is a general section applicable to design-defect claims. The LPLA “establishes the exclusive theories of liability for manufacturers for damage caused by their products.” LA. STAT. ANN. § 9:2800.52. Generally, a claimant may recover from a manufacturer if: (1) The product is unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition as provided in R.S. 9:2800.55; 1 Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XII, § 1 permits a federal circuit court of appeals to certify a state law question that is determinative of an issue, when “no clear controlling precedents” from that court exist. The potential that the state court will not answer is recognized in the Rule: the Court “may, in its discretion, decline to answer the questions certified to it.” Id. Other courts have occasionally declined to answer our questions. See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Learmonth, 95 So. 3d 633, 639 (Miss. 2012). 4 Case: 17-30499 Document: 00516272921 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 17-30499 (2) The product is unreasonably dangerous in design as provided in R.S. 9:2800.56; (3) The product is unreasonably dangerous because an adequate warning about the product has not been provided as provided in R.S. 9:2800.57; or (4) The product is unreasonably dangerous because it does not conform to an express warranty of the manufacturer about the product as provided in R.S. 9:2800.58. Id. § 9:2800.54. In 1999, the Louisiana Legislature amended the LPLA to limit products liability actions against firearms manufacturers, codifying that amendment as Section 60 of the LPLA. 1999 La. Sess. Law Serv. 1299 (codified at § 9:2800.60). The appeal here focuses on Section 60(B): No firearm manufacturer or seller shall be liable for any injury, damage, or death resulting from any shooting injury by any other person unless the claimant proves and shows that such injury, damage, or death was proximately caused by the unreasonably dangerous construction or composition of the product as provided in R.S. 9:2800.55. Id. § 9:2800.60(B). When interpreting statutes, Louisiana courts start with the text. They apply “the well-established rules of statutory construction . . . to ascertain and enforce the intent of the statute.” See Boudreaux v. La. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr., 2012-0239, p.4 (La. 10/16/12); 101 So. 3d 22, 26. If the text “is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.” LA. CIV. CODE art. 9. Conversely, if “the language of the law is susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law.” LA. CIV. CODE art. 10. 5 Case: 17-30499 Document: 00516272921 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/08/2022 No. 17-30499 We add to this analysis the need to look at the entire statute; at times the Louisiana Supreme Court has emphasized a need to interpret one provision in a manner that reconciles it to the rest of an enactment: A statute’s meaning and intent is determined after consideration of the entire statute and all other statutes on the same subject matter, and a construction should be placed on the provision in question which is consistent with the express terms of the statute and with the obvious intent of the Legislature in its enactment of the statute. Where it is possible, the courts have a duty in the interpretation of a statute to adopt a construction which harmonizes and reconciles it with other provisions. ABL Mgmt. v. Bd. of Supervisors of S. Univ., 2000-0798, p.6 (La. 11/28/00); 773 So. 2d 131, 135. With this guidance, we start down the interpretive path.