Court Opinion

ID: 9387779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 22:05:05.856698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.453385
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                   COURT OF APPEAL

                                      FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 NUMBER 2022 CA 1112

                             STEPHEN J. HOLLIDAY, ET AL

                                         VERSUS

     THE ESTATE OF BETSY BEAUBOUEF, RUDOLPH BEAUBOUEF, IN HIS
     CAPACITY OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE, DAVID BEAUBOUEF
1     AND MICHELLE M. JONES BEAUBOUEF, RUDOLPH BEAUBOUEF, JR.,
     THE UNIVERSTIY CLUB PLANTATION HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION,
     INC., LIBERTY PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND STATE FARM
                   MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

                                            Judgment Rendered:        APR 18 2023

                                     Appealed from the
                             Nineteenth Judicial District Court
                          In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
                                     State of Louisiana
                                    Suit Number 700813

                           Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Presiding

    Carey R. Holliday                            Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
    Baton Rouge, LA                              Stephen J. Holliday

    Mickey S. DeLaup                             Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
    James K. Sticker                             David Beaubouef & Michelle M. Jones
    Travis J. Beslin
    Metairie, LA

    and

    D. Russell Holwadel
    Heather England Reznik
    New Orleans, LA

    J. Murphy DeLaune                            Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
    Baton Rouge, LA                              State Farm Mutual Automobile
                                                 Insurance Company
Renee M. Credeur                     Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
Brad J. Brumfield                    Rudolph Beaubouef, Rudolph
Baton Rouge, LA                      Anthony Beaubouef, &   the Estate of
                                     Betsy Beaubouef

            BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
GUIDRY, C. J.

        Plaintiffs/Appellants, Stephen J. Holliday and Hollea Holliday, individually
and on behalf of their minor child, James Hollis Holliday, appeal from a judgment

of the trial court sustaining an exception raising the objection of no cause of action

filed by defendants/ appellees,        David Beaubouef and Michelle M. Jones,            and

dismissing plaintiffs'     claims against them with prejudice.       For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

                       FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        On October 31, 2019, Stephen Holliday was riding as a passenger on a four -

wheeled vehicle that was pulling a trailer around their neighborhood, the University

Club,   for trick -or -treating.     The trailer was hauling both children and adult

passengers, including Stephen' s wife, Hollea, and their son, .lames.       While stopped

on Memorial Tower Drive, Stephen exited the four -wheeler and was standing next

to the trailer when he was struck by a vehicle being driven by Betsy Beaubouef.

Hollea, who was sitting in the trailer, was also struck by Ms. Beaubouefs sideview

mirror. Both Stephen and Hollea sustained injuries from the accident.

        Thereafter,   plaintiffs filed a petition for damages naming as defendants,

among others, the estate of Ms. Beaubouef; Rudolph Beauboeuf, Ms. Beaubouefs

former spouse; David Beaubouef and Michelle M. Jones Beaubouef; and University

Club Plantation Homeowners Association, Inc.' Plaintiffs alleged that at the time of

the accident, Ms. Beaubouef had just left the residence of her son and daughter- in-

law, David and Michelle,           which was located some 150- 200 feet up the road.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Beaubouef was intoxicated at the time of the accident and

that David and Michelle had hosted a party and supplied sufficient alcohol to Ms.

Beaubouef such that she was unable to safely operate her motor vehicle.           Plaintiffs

1 University Club Plantation Homeowners Association, Inc. was erroneously named as University
Club Plantation Homeowner' s Club, Inc. in plaintiffs' petition.

                                                 V
alleged that David and Michelle were not subject to immunity and were liable to

plaintiffs for supplying alcoholic beverages to Ms. Beaubouef, whose intoxication

caused injuries to plaintiffs, and for failing to prevent Ms. Beaubouef from operating

her motor vehicle when they knew, or should have known, that she was too

intoxicated to drive.     Plaintiffs further alleged it is tradition in University Club

subdivision to provide alcoholic beverages to adults as well as candy to trick -or -

treaters on Halloween, thereby effectuating a gathering on a premises that extended

to the entire neighborhood.

       Thereafter, David and Michelle filed an exception raising the objection of no

cause of action, asserting that based on the facts as alleged in the petition, and the

immunity from liability provided to social hosts by La. R.S. 9: 2800. 1, plaintiffs'

petition is devoid of any factual allegations sufficient to state a cause of action

against them.

       Following a hearing on the exception, the trial court signed a judgment on

April 13, 2021, sustaining the exception and granting plaintiffs thirty days to amend

their petition to state a cause of action against David and Michelle. Thereafter, on

May 3,      2021, plaintiffs filed a First Supplemental Petition, adding paragraphs

alleging that Ms. Beaubouef had urged that she suffered from a mental deficiency or

dementia such that she lacked the ability to determine right from wrong and that such

dementia was the proximate cause of her actions and plaintiffs' injuries, that David

and Michelle knew or should have known of the mental condition suffered by Ms.

Beaubouef, that David and Michelle had a duty to stop Ms. Beaubouef from leaving

their home, and that the breach of this duty was the proximate cause of plaintiffs'

injuries.

       David and Michelle thereafter filed another exception raising the objection of

no cause of action in response to plaintiffs' first supplemental petition, asserting

plaintiffs'   petition still contained all of the prior allegations that the trial court

                                            4
already ruled were insufficient to state a cause of action against David and Michelle,

and the new allegations regarding alleged dementia and duty of David and Michelle

were devoid of factual or legal support and failed to state a cause of action.

       Following a hearing, the trial court signed a judgment on May 26,                       2022,

sustaining the exception and dismissing plaintiffs'                 claims against David and

Michelle with prejudice.           Plaintiffs now appeal from the trial court' s judgment,

asserting the trial court erred in sustaining the exception and misinterpreting La. R. S.

9: 2800. 1 to bar the cause of action against David and Michelle.2

                                          DISCUSSION

       The function of the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of

action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law

affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition. Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish

Government, 19- 1555, p. 10 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 8/ 21),         322 So. 3d 1268, 1278, writ

denied, 21- 00800 ( La. 11 / 3/ 21), 326 So. 3d 898. The exception is triable on the face

of the pleading, and for purposes of determining issues raised by the exception, the

well -pleaded facts in the pleading must be accepted as true.                  Terrebonne Parish

Consolidated Government v. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, 21- 0486,

p. 6 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 12/ 30/ 21),   340 So. 3d 940, 944.     The burden of demonstrating

that a petition fails to state a cause of action is upon the mover. Succession of King,

21- 1386, p. 3 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 28122),    342 So. 3d 367, 370, writ denied, 22- 01081

 La. 10/ 18/ 22), 348 So. 3d 730.         In reviewing a trial court' s ruling sustaining an

exception raising the objection of no cause of action, appellate courts conduct a de

novo review, because the exception raises a question of law, and the trial court' s

decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition. Stevens, 19- 1555 at p. 10,

322 So. 3d at 1279.

2 Plaintiffs do not raise on appeal any error by the trial court in failing to find that they stated a
cause of action with regard to Ms. Beaubouef s alleged mental deficiency. As such, that issue is
not before this court on appeal.

                                                  5
       In the instant case, plaintiffs filed a supplemental petition alleging that David

and Michelle were liable for their injuries because they hosted a Halloween party

and supplied sufficient alcohol to Ms. Beaubouef such that Ms. Beaubouef was

unable to safely operate her motor vehicle. Plaintiffs further alleged that David and

Michelle are not subject to immunity and are liable to plaintiffs for supplying

alcoholic beverages to Ms. Beaubouef at their party and for failing to prevent Ms.

Beaubouef from operating her motor vehicle when they knew,                    or should have

known, that she was too intoxicated to drive.

      In    1986, the Louisiana Legislature enacted La. R.S.               9: 2800. 1,   entitled

 Limitation of liability for loss connected with sale,          serving,     or furnishing of

alcoholic beverages,"     with the express purpose of placing the responsibility for

consequences of intoxication on the intoxicated person, rather than the server of the

alcohol.
           Aucoin v. Rochel, 08- 1180, p. 7 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 12/ 23/ 08), S So. 3d 197,

201, writ denied, 09- 0122 ( La. 3127109), 5 So. 3d 143.       Subsection ( A) of La. R.S.

9:2800. 1 provides, specifically, that " the consumption of intoxicating beverages,

rather than the sale or serving or furnishing of such beverages, is the proximate cause

of any injury ... inflicted by an intoxicated person upon himself or upon another

person."   In furtherance of this stated goal, La. R.S. 9: 2800. 1( C)( 1)    provides:

       Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no social host who
      serves or furnishes any intoxicating beverage of either high or low
      alcoholic content to a person over the age for the lawful purchase
      thereof shall be liable to such person or to any other person or to the
      estate, successors, or survivors of either for any injury suffered off the
      premises, including wrongful death and property damage, because of
      the intoxication of the person to whom the intoxicating beverages were
      served or furnished.

      Louisiana Revised Statutes 9: 2800. 1         is referred to as "      anti -dram shop"

legislation because it provides absolute immunity to vendors and social hosts who

serve alcoholic beverages to a person over the age for lawful purchase thereof. See

Mayhorn v. McKinney, 34, 789, p. 7 ( La. App. 2nd Cir. 6120121),             793 So. 2d 225,

                                              au
229.   The only exceptions to the limitation of liability expressly provided for are

when alcoholic beverages are sold or served to minors and to any person who causes

or contributes to the consumption of alcoholic beverages by force or by falsely

representing that a beverage contains no alcohol. See Aucoin, 08- 1180 at p. 8, 5 So.

3d at 201.

        The factual allegations as contained in plaintiffs' supplemental petition show

that David and Michelle were social hosts who provided alcoholic beverages at their

Halloween party to Ms. Beaubouef, who was over the lawful age for purchase of

alcoholic beverages.        Furthermore,       the injury to plaintiffs was alleged to have

occurred " some 150- 200 feet up the road" from David and Michelle' s residence. As

such, we find that the clear language of La. R. S. 9: 2800. 1 ( C)(         1) provides immunity

to David and Michelle, and the trial court correctly sustained David and Michelle' s

exception raising the objection of no cause of action.3
                                         CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. All costs

of this appeal are assessed to plaintiffs, Stephen J. Holliday and Hollea Holliday,

individually and on behalf of their minor child, James Hollis Holliday.

       AFFIRMED.

3 Plaintiffs raise on appeal that " premises" is not defined in La. R.S. 9: 2800. 1 and the trial court
erred in its interpretation of that term. However, we find that the plaintiffs' supplemental petition
failed to set forth any facts alleging that David and Michelle' s particular party extended beyond
their residence. The court is not required to accept conclusory allegations or allegations of law as
true for purposes of ruling on an exception of no cause of action. Christian Schools, Inc. v.
Louisiana High School Athletic Association, 20- 0762, p. 5 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 5118122), 342 So. 3d
1068, 1072, writ denied, 22- 01015 ( La. 10112122), 348 So. 3d 78.       As such, we find plaintiffs'
argument in this regard to be without merit.

                                                   7