Eubanks v. Bayou D'Arbonne Lake Watershed District
Docket: No. 26309-CA
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 24, 1995; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The trial court's certification of a class action for a group of 88 plaintiffs, primarily spouses, who claim property damage and personal injury due to flooding at Bayou D’Arbonne Lake from April 26 to May 5, 1991, has been reversed. The defendants, including various watershed districts and the State of Louisiana's DOTD, argued that the trial court erred in certifying the case as a class action under LSA-C.C.P. Articles 591 and 592, claiming the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of numerosity and a common character of rights. The appellate court noted that Louisiana's class action law, derived from federal guidelines, only allows for true class actions and that commonality of legal or factual questions alone is insufficient for certification. There must be a significant relationship between the claims beyond shared questions, with predominant common issues affecting all class members. The court cited a prior case, Pillow v. Board of Commissioners, to emphasize this point and highlighted that the current case, while involving property damage, did not sufficiently establish the necessary legal framework for class action designation.
In Pillow, the damages were intentional due to expropriation, whereas the current case revolves around alleged negligence. The plaintiffs claim the defendants negligently failed to control lake flooding and adequately warn about potential flooding risks. They also assert strict liability concerning defects in the original construction of an immovable property. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue, albeit not formally pled, that the state only acquired a servitude elevation to 80 feet mean sea level (MSL) during the lake's creation, and they contend that the state should have foreseen flooding up to 10 feet above this level, which constitutes negligence for not expropriating to a higher elevation.
A factual determination is required for each class member regarding the elevation of their property and the location of improvements affected by flooding. It must be assessed whether property damage was caused by flooding within the expropriated level and the extent of each class member's knowledge or reliance on third parties regarding the placement of those improvements. Although there are common issues—such as the defendants' duty to expropriate a larger servitude or their negligence in flood control—individual questions predominate due to the unique circumstances of each property owner, which complicates class action viability.
The court concludes that class certification would be unfair to the defendants given the varying defenses applicable to each case. Therefore, the commonality requirement for class certification was not met, leading to the reversal of the trial court's order certifying the case as a class action. The case is remanded for further proceedings, with the assessment of costs deferred until the final determination of the action.
