Recognition of Duty to Prevent Negligent Precipitation of Third-Party Crime and the Abrogation of Louisiana's Professional Rescuer’s Doctrine in Doe v. McKesson

Introduction

The case of Officer John Doe v. DeRay McKesson, et al., adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Louisiana on March 25, 2022, marks a significant development in Louisiana tort law. The plaintiff, Officer John Doe, a commissioned police officer for the City of Baton Rouge, filed a personal injury lawsuit against DeRay McKesson, alleged leader and co-founder of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization, and other members of BLM. The core allegations centered around a protest on July 9, 2016, organized by BLM in response to the death of Alton Sterling, which, according to Officer Doe, escalated into violence resulting in his injury. The case raised pivotal questions about the extent of legal duties of protest organizers and the applicability of the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine in Louisiana.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Louisiana addressed two certified questions forwarded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The first question examined whether Louisiana law recognizes a duty not to negligently precipitate the crime of a third party under the facts alleged. The second questioned whether Louisiana's Professional Rescuer's Doctrine would bar recovery in such a scenario.

The court answered the first question in the affirmative, recognizing that under the specified facts, there exists a duty for individuals not to negligently incite criminal activities that could foreseeably result in harm to others. Regarding the second question, the court responded negatively, determining that the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine does not preclude recovery in this context.

The judgment nuanced the boundaries of legal responsibility for protest organizers, emphasizing that intentional or negligent actions that foreseeably lead to third-party crimes can impose liability. Additionally, the court delineated the limits of the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine, aligning Louisiana law more closely with comparative fault principles.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced Louisiana Civil Code articles and previous court decisions to substantiate its reasoning:

• Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315: Establishes general liability for acts that cause damage to another, obligating the responsible party to repair the harm.
• Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 752 So.2d 762 (La. 1999): Introduced the "duty-risk" analysis in Louisiana negligence claims, emphasizing moral, social, and economic factors in determining duty.
• BROWN v. TESACK, 566 So.2d 955 (La. 1990): Clarified that Louisiana recognizes a duty not to negligently precipitate third-party crimes.
• MURRAY v. RAMADA INNS, INC., 521 So.2d 1123 (La. 1988): Addressed the abrogation of the assumption of risk in Louisiana tort law, laying the groundwork for focusing on comparative fault.
• NAACP v. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO., 458 U.S. 886 (1982): Influenced the constitutional considerations regarding the First Amendment and tort liability.

These precedents collectively informed the court's stance on duties in negligence and the applicability of doctrines shielding professional rescuers from liability.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court of Louisiana employed a structured approach to resolve the certified questions, leaning heavily on the duty-risk analysis framework established in Posecai and other cases. This analysis involves five elements: injury to the plaintiff, duty of care owed by the defendant, breach of that duty, causation, and the scope of the duty's protection concerning the harm.

For the first question, the court determined that McKesson, as an organizer and leader of the protest, owed a duty to not negligently precipitate criminal activities. This duty was established based on the foreseeable risk of violence, given McKesson's role and previous incidents associated with BLM protests.

Addressing the second question, the court found that Louisiana's Professional Rescuer's Doctrine does not bar recovery in this case. This was due to legislative changes and jurisprudential shifts toward pure comparative fault, diminishing the scope of the doctrine. The court emphasized that unless explicitly preserved by statute, such doctrines are overridden by broader tort principles.

Justice Weimer, concurring, highlighted that the court's role was limited to answering the certified questions without delving into the underlying case merits, ensuring deference to state courts regarding Louisiana law interpretations.

Impact

This judgment holds significant implications for future cases involving protest organizers and individuals leading public demonstrations. By recognizing a duty not to negligently incite criminal activities, the court effectively broadens the scope of potential liability for organizers beyond direct participants or instigators of violence.

Furthermore, the abrogation of the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine aligns Louisiana law with contemporary tort principles, emphasizing comparative fault over blanket immunity for professional rescuers. This shift may influence how injuries sustained during such incidents are adjudicated, potentially increasing accountability.

Policymakers and organizers of public gatherings may need to reassess their procedures and risk management strategies to mitigate potential liabilities arising from negligence that could lead to third-party criminal activities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Duty-Risk Analysis

A legal framework used to determine whether a defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in negligence cases. It assesses if the defendant's actions endangered the plaintiff, considering various factors like fairness and societal norms.

Professional Rescuer's Doctrine

A legal principle that traditionally shields professional rescuers, such as police officers and firefighters, from liability for injuries sustained while performing their duties, based on the assumption that they accept certain risks inherent to their roles.

Comparative Fault

A legal doctrine where the plaintiff's recovery of damages is reduced by their percentage of fault in contributing to the harm, instead of being entirely barred from compensation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Louisiana's decision in Doe v. McKesson establishes a pivotal precedent by affirming that individuals organizing public demonstrations have a duty to avoid negligently precipitating criminal activities that could foreseeably result in harm to others. Simultaneously, the court clarifies the diminished role of the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine within Louisiana's legal framework, reinforcing the applicability of comparative fault principles. This judgment underscores the balance between protecting the right to protest and ensuring public safety, heralding a significant shift in tort liability considerations for protest organizers and professionals involved in public safety.