Premises Liability Complaint - Louisiana

PREMISES LIABILITY PETITION — LOUISIANA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Duty of Care — Louisiana Framework
6. First Cause of Action — Negligence (Premises Liability)
7. Second Cause of Action — Custodial Liability Under Art. 2317/2317.1
8. Third Cause of Action — Building Ruin Under Art. 2322
9. Fourth Cause of Action — Merchant Liability (La. R.S. 9:2800.6)
10. Damages
11. Jury Demand
12. Prayer for Relief
13. Verification
14. State-Specific Notes
15. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

[____] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE PARISH OF [PARISH NAME], LOUISIANA

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME] ("Plaintiff") is a person of the full age of majority, domiciled in [CITY], [PARISH] Parish, Louisiana.

2. Defendant [DEFENDANT FULL NAME] ("Defendant") is [an individual domiciled in / a corporation organized under the laws of / a limited liability company formed under the laws of] [STATE], and at all relevant times was the [owner / lessee / occupier / custodian / manager] of the immovable property located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], [PARISH] Parish, Louisiana (the "Premises"). Defendant may be served with process at [ADDRESS FOR SERVICE].

3.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to La. Const. art. V, § 16 and La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1 et seq. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

5. Venue is proper in the Parish of [PARISH NAME] pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 71 et seq. because [the wrongful act occurred in this parish / Defendant is domiciled in this parish].

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. At all relevant times, Defendant [owned / leased / occupied / managed / had custody of] the Premises located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], Louisiana [ZIP CODE].

7. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], Plaintiff was [lawfully present on / entering / exiting] the Premises for the purpose of [PURPOSE OF VISIT].

8. At the time of the incident, there existed on the Premises a dangerous condition, specifically: [DESCRIBE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN DETAIL — e.g., a wet floor without warning signs, a broken stairway, an uneven walkway, inadequate lighting, a defective handrail].

9. Defendant had [actual / constructive] knowledge of the dangerous condition because:

☐ Defendant created the dangerous condition.

☐ Defendant had actual knowledge of the condition through [DESCRIBE].

☐ The condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care.

☐ The condition was part of a recurring hazard known to Defendant.

10. As a direct result of the dangerous condition, Plaintiff [DESCRIBE INCIDENT — e.g., slipped and fell, was struck by falling debris] and sustained serious injuries.

5. DUTY OF CARE — LOUISIANA FRAMEWORK

11. At the time of the incident, Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff under Louisiana law as follows:

Under La. Civ. Code art. 2317.1 (Custodial Liability):

The owner or custodian of a thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its ruin, vice, or defect, only upon a showing that: (a) the thing was in the owner's custody or control; (b) the thing had a vice or defect that created an unreasonable risk of harm; (c) the owner knew or should have known of the defect; and (d) the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care.

Under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 (Merchant Slip-and-Fall):

[IF APPLICABLE] A merchant owes a duty of care to persons lawfully on the premises to exercise reasonable care to keep aisles, passageways, and floors in a reasonably safe condition, including a reasonable effort to keep the premises free of any hazardous conditions which reasonably might give rise to damage.

6. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY)

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

12. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 11 above.

13. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the Premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of hazards. La. Civ. Code art. 2315.

14. Defendant breached this duty by [failing to maintain the Premises / failing to discover the dangerous condition / failing to correct the condition / failing to warn Plaintiff].

15. Defendant's breach was a cause-in-fact and legal cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — CUSTODIAL LIABILITY UNDER ART. 2317/2317.1

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

16. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

17. At all relevant times, Defendant had custody and control of the Premises.

18. The Premises contained a vice or defect — specifically, [DESCRIBE DEFECT] — that created an unreasonable risk of harm to persons lawfully on the Premises.

19. Defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the vice or defect, and the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care.

20. The vice or defect was a cause-in-fact and legal cause of Plaintiff's injuries. La. Civ. Code arts. 2317, 2317.1.

8. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — BUILDING RUIN UNDER ART. 2322

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

22. At all relevant times, Defendant was the owner of the building located at [ADDRESS].

23. The building suffered from [a state of ruin caused by neglect to repair / a vice or defect in its original construction], specifically: [DESCRIBE].

24. Defendant knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of said vice or defect, the damage could have been prevented by reasonable care, and Defendant failed to exercise such care. La. Civ. Code art. 2322.

9. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION — MERCHANT LIABILITY (La. R.S. 9:2800.6)

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

26. Defendant is a "merchant" as defined by La. R.S. 9:2800.6(A).

27. A condition on the merchant's premises presented an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff, and this risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.

28. The merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition that caused Plaintiff's damage.

29. The merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. Specifically:

☐ The condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care.

☐ The merchant failed to make reasonable periodic inspections of the area.

30. Plaintiff did not have knowledge of the condition. La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B).

10. DAMAGES

31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's fault, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following damages:

a. Past and Future Medical Expenses: Hospitalization, surgery, physician visits, physical therapy, medications, diagnostic testing, and all other reasonable and necessary medical expenses.

b. Past and Future Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Loss of wages, income, and earning capacity.

c. Past and Future Physical Pain and Suffering: Physical pain and suffering.

d. Past and Future Mental Anguish: Mental anguish, emotional distress, and psychological harm.

e. Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Diminished enjoyment of life and loss of lifestyle.

f. Scarring and Disfigurement: Past and future disfigurement.

g. Loss of Consortium: [IF APPLICABLE — Loss of consortium, society, and services of spouse.]

h. Property Damage: [IF APPLICABLE — Damage to Plaintiff's personal property.]

11. JURY DEMAND

32. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by a jury and tenders the appropriate jury bond. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1731 et seq.

12. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that after all legal proceedings are had, there be judgment herein in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant(s) as follows:

1. Damages in an amount reasonable under the evidence presented at trial;
2. Legal interest from the date of judicial demand until paid;
3. All costs of these proceedings;
4. All expert fees and costs;
5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], La. Bar Roll No. [NUMBER]
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[ADDRESS LINE 2]
[CITY], Louisiana [ZIP CODE]
Telephone: [PHONE]
Facsimile: [FAX]
Email: [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME]

13. VERIFICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF [PARISH NAME]

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME], who being duly sworn, deposed and stated that the facts set forth in the above Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.

________________________________________
[PLAINTIFF FULL NAME]

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME on this [____] day of [____], [____].

________________________________________
Notary Public, State of Louisiana
My Commission Expires: [DATE]
Notary/Bar No.: [NUMBER]

14. STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

No Invitee/Licensee/Trespasser Framework. Louisiana does not use the common-law categories. Instead, premises liability is governed by the Civil Code articles (2315, 2317, 2317.1, 2322) and statutory law (La. R.S. 9:2800.6 for merchants).

Modified Comparative Fault. The current version of La. Civ. Code art. 2323, amended by 2025 Act 15 and effective January 1, 2026, bars recovery when claimant negligence is 51% or greater and proportionally reduces recovery below 51%. The Act does not state an incident-date or filing-date transition test; determine the governing version for an earlier event under Civil Code article 6 and controlling temporal-law authority.

Two-Year Prescriptive Period (Delictual Actions). Effective July 1, 2024, Louisiana's prescriptive period for delictual actions is two (2) years from the date of injury under La. Civ. Code art. 3493.1 (enacted by Acts 2024, No. 423; former art. 3492 — which provided a 1-year prescription — was repealed). This is a liberative prescription, not a statute of limitations. For causes of action that accrued before July 1, 2024, the former 1-year prescription under repealed art. 3492 still applies.

Merchant Burden of Proof. Under La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the claimant bears the burden of proving the merchant had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Constructive notice requires evidence the condition existed for enough time to have been discovered through reasonable inspection. Temporal evidence is critical.

Direct Action Statute. La. R.S. 22:1269 generally bars naming a liability insurer directly unless a circumstance listed in subsection (B)(1) applies. Otherwise subsection (D) governs insurer joinder at judgment or settlement.

Government Claims. Claims against state or local government entities require compliance with La. R.S. 13:5101 et seq. and may be subject to damage caps.

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• La. Civ. Code art. 2315 — General tort liability
• La. Civ. Code art. 2317 — Acts of things in custody
• La. Civ. Code art. 2317.1 — Custodial liability (vice or defect)
• La. Civ. Code art. 2322 — Building ruin
• La. Civ. Code art. 2323 — Comparative fault
• La. Civ. Code art. 3493.1 — Two-year prescriptive period for delictual actions (enacted by Acts 2024, No. 423, eff. July 1, 2024; replaces repealed art. 3492's one-year prescription)
• La. R.S. 9:2800.6 — Merchant slip-and-fall liability
• La. R.S. 22:1269 — Direct Action Statute
• Broussard v. State, ex rel. OTS, 2012-1238 (La. 2013)
• White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1997-0393 (La. 1999)