Court Opinion

ID: 9652701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:30:30.930553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:53.593928
License: Public Domain

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge,
dissenting for additional reasons.
U dissent for the reasons expressed by-Judge Peters and for this additional reason. It is axiomatic that under Louisiana’s duty-risk analysis, a plaintiff has to prove five elements: duty; breach of duty; cause-in-fact; legal cause; and, damages. Legal cause focuses on whether a defendant owed a duty to this plaintiff under these circumstances. Even assuming the existence of a duty, did the duty of the Lafayette Parish School Board extend to protect C.C. and S.J. from the harm they allegedly suffered from the alleged occurrence, i.e., rape? See Hill v. Lundin & Assocs., Inc., 260 La. 542, 256 So.2d 620 (1972). It really boils down to a test of foreseeability. In my view, legal cause simply does not exist in this case.
I, therefore, dissent.