Louisiana
Louisiana Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability Under the Civil Code
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
To win a slip and fall claim in Louisiana, you must prove the property owner or merchant had actual or constructive notice of an unreasonable hazard and failed to remedy it. As of January 1, 2026, Louisiana uses modified comparative fault with a 51% bar, meaning partial fault reduces your recovery but only bars it if you are 51% or more responsible.
Proving a slip and fall claim in Louisiana
Every Louisiana slip and fall case is a premises liability claim grounded in negligence. To recover damages you must establish four things: the owner owed you a duty of care, a dangerous condition existed on the premises, the owner had notice of that condition and failed to remedy it, and the failure caused your injuries.
Louisiana premises liability flows from La. Civ. Code arts. 2317.1 and 2322. Article 2317.1 imposes liability for damage caused by defects in things within a person's custody or ownership when the custodian knew or should have known of the defect and failed to take reasonable corrective action. Article 2322 specifically covers buildings and their appurtenances. For most slip and fall claims, courts ask whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm and whether the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of it.
For merchant slip-and-fall claims, La. R.S. 9:2800.6 adds a heightened burden. This statute requires the plaintiff to prove: (1) the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the claimant and that risk was reasonably foreseeable; (2) the merchant either created or had actual notice of the condition which caused the damage, or the condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care; and (3) the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. This "temporal element" is often the decisive battleground in grocery store, restaurant, and retail slip-and-fall cases. Evidence such as witness statements about how long a spill was present, maintenance logs, or surveillance footage is critical for establishing constructive notice. In a store or restaurant case, get a free consultation from a Louisiana slip and fall lawyer on gathering that evidence of how long the hazard was there (attorney advertising).
The open-and-obvious doctrine in Louisiana
Louisiana does NOT use open-and-obvious as a complete bar to recovery, and the 2023 Louisiana Supreme Court decision in Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc. settled the doctrine definitively.
In Farrell, a customer slipped in a large puddle at the edge of a Circle K gas station parking lot. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that whether a condition is open and obvious bears on whether the owner BREACHED its duty, not on whether a duty exists at all, and that obviousness "is not a jurisprudential doctrine barring recovery, but only a factor of the risk/utility balancing test." The court applied that four-factor test: (1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activity at the time of injury.
Applying that test, the court ruled for the merchant. The puddle was large enough that witnesses compared it to the size of an automobile, and it sat in a part of the lot "not customarily traversed" by customers, so reasonable minds could only agree it was not unreasonably dangerous. Circle K was entitled to summary judgment and the claim was dismissed, despite evidence of slippery algae in the water.
The practical effect is narrower than the headline holding suggests. A property owner still owes a duty of reasonable care when a hazard is obvious, and obviousness that reaches a jury is weighed in the risk-utility test and in the plaintiff's comparative fault share under La. Civ. Code art. 2323. But Farrell also confirmed that the breach element can be resolved before trial: if reasonable minds could only agree the condition was not unreasonably dangerous, the defendant wins on summary judgment and no jury ever allocates fault. An obvious hazard in Louisiana is therefore neither a complete duty bar nor a guaranteed ticket to a jury. Two earlier Louisiana Supreme Court decisions frame this approach: Broussard v. State (La. 2013) classified the unreasonable-risk-of-harm analysis as a question of breach rather than duty, and Bufkin v. Felipe's (La. 2014) held that an obvious and apparent, not unreasonably dangerous condition created no duty to warn and said Broussard should not be read to bar summary judgment in that situation.
Ice, snow, and natural accumulation in Louisiana
Louisiana does not recognize the "natural accumulation rule" applied in cold-weather states like Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin. That doctrine, where it exists, relieves property owners of liability for falls on ice or snow that accumulates naturally without human intervention. It has no application in Louisiana.
Because snow and ice are rare statewide, the practically equivalent issue in Louisiana is accumulated rainwater, particularly near store entrances, parking lots, and building overhangs. Under La. Civ. Code arts. 2317.1 and 2322, owners owe a reasonable-care duty to address all hazardous conditions regardless of their origin. For merchants, La. R.S. 9:2800.6 additionally requires that the merchant exercise "reasonable care to keep his aisles, passageways, and floors in a reasonably safe condition."
There is no categorical exemption for naturally accumulating water. A plaintiff still must prove the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm and that the defendant created it or had actual or constructive notice (the temporal element). But the fact that rain caused the water does not shield the merchant or property owner from liability if they had the opportunity to detect and address it.
How fault is shared: Louisiana's negligence rule
Louisiana's negligence rule changed significantly on January 1, 2026. Before that date, Louisiana was a pure comparative fault state, meaning a plaintiff could recover damages even if they were 99% at fault; their recovery was simply reduced to their non-fault share.
Effective January 1, 2026, La. Civ. Code art. 2323 was amended by 2025 La. Acts No. 15 (HB 431) to adopt MODIFIED comparative fault with a 51% bar. Now, a plaintiff found to be "equal to or greater than fifty-one percent" at fault recovers nothing. Below that threshold, damages are still reduced proportionally. If a jury finds the plaintiff 30% at fault and the merchant 70% at fault, the plaintiff recovers 70% of total damages.
There are two important carve-outs. First, claims arising from injuries before January 1, 2026 remain governed by the former pure-comparative rule, even if filed after that date. The date of injury controls which version applies. Second, the 51% bar does not apply against intentional tortfeasors; fault reduction for a plaintiff's comparative negligence is not assessed when the defendant acted intentionally.
Fault is allocated among all persons contributing to the loss, whether parties to the lawsuit or not. A jury may assign fault percentages to the property owner, the plaintiff, and any other responsible third party, and damages are calculated accordingly.
Deadlines: statute of limitations and government claims
The prescriptive period (Louisiana's term for a statute of limitations) for most slip and fall personal injury claims is 2 years. This applies to causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2024, under La. Civ. Code art. 3493.1, which was enacted by Acts 2024, No. 423 and replaced the former one-year period in now-repealed arts. 3492 and 3493.
If your injury occurred before July 1, 2024, the prior 1-year prescription period generally applies. Louisiana's 1-year period was one of the shortest in the country for personal injury, so understanding which rule governs is critical. Prescription commences from the day the injury or damage is sustained. Certain discovery-based tolling rules may apply when the injury was not immediately apparent.
For more on Louisiana's timeframes across all case types, see the Louisiana statute of limitations page.
Falls on government property present a different picture in Louisiana. Unlike many states that require a short pre-suit notice of claim (30, 60, or 90 days), Louisiana's Governmental Claims Act (La. R.S. 13:5101 et seq.) imposes NO pre-suit notice-of-claim requirement. You do not need to file a notice before suing a state agency or political subdivision. The ordinary prescriptive period applies. You should be aware, however, that La. R.S. 13:5107 requires that citation of the State be requested within 90 days of filing the lawsuit; this is a post-filing procedural rule, not a pre-suit deadline, but failure to comply can result in dismissal. Also, La. R.S. 13:5106 limits what the state or a political subdivision pays: $500,000 per person for personal injury, exclusive of property damage, medical care and related benefits, and lost earnings.
What a Louisiana slip and fall claim is worth
A Louisiana slip and fall settlement or verdict can include economic damages (medical bills, future treatment costs, lost wages, and diminished earning capacity) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and permanent disability). Louisiana does not impose a general cap on non-economic damages in ordinary premises liability cases.
For claims against the Louisiana state government or its political subdivisions, La. R.S. 13:5106 limits total liability to $500,000 per person for personal injury, and separately to $500,000 per person for wrongful death. That is not a cap on the whole judgment. The statute makes the limit "exclusive of property damages, medical care and related benefits and loss of earnings, and loss of future earnings," so those categories are recoverable in addition to the $500,000. Future medical care and related benefits are paid as they are incurred, from the Future Medical Care Fund when the defendant is the state or a state agency, or through a court-ordered reversionary trust when the defendant is a political subdivision.
Under the modified comparative fault rule effective January 1, 2026, your recovery is reduced by your own percentage of fault. If your provable damages total $200,000 and a jury finds you 20% at fault, you recover $160,000. Reach or exceed 51% fault and you recover nothing. For pre-January 2026 injuries, pure comparative fault applies and you can recover at any fault level.
Merchant cases under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 can be harder to win than non-merchant cases because of the additional notice burden, but successful cases against grocery stores, big-box retailers, and restaurants routinely settle in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on injury severity.
Use the Louisiana slip and fall settlement calculator to model your damages before speaking with an attorney. Return to the Slip and Fall Laws hub for comparisons across all 50 states.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Premises liability law varies by state and changes, and case values depend on the specific facts. For advice about a specific fall, consult a licensed attorney in Louisiana.
More Louisiana Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I prove a slip and fall in Louisiana?
You must prove the owner had a duty of care, the premises contained an unreasonable hazard, the owner had actual or constructive notice of the hazard and failed to fix it, and that failure caused your injury. For merchant (retail or restaurant) claims, La. R.S. 9:2800.6 requires you to additionally prove the merchant created the hazard or had notice of it (the 'temporal element'), meaning it existed long enough that reasonable care should have caught it.
Is Louisiana an open-and-obvious state?
No, not in the sense that obviousness bars your claim. The Louisiana Supreme Court held in Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc. (2023) that open-and-obvious is a breach and risk-utility factor, not a duty bar. An obvious hazard is weighed within the four-factor risk-utility test at the breach element and, if the case reaches a jury, in your comparative fault share. It does not wipe out the owner's duty, but it can still end a case early: in Farrell itself the court held Circle K was entitled to summary judgment because reasonable minds could only agree the puddle was not unreasonably dangerous.
Can I sue for falling on rainwater or ice in Louisiana?
Yes. Louisiana has no natural-accumulation rule. Owners and merchants owe a reasonable-care duty to all hazardous floor conditions, including rainwater near entrances and any rare icy conditions. For merchant claims under La. R.S. 9:2800.6, you still need to show the merchant had actual or constructive notice of the wet condition, but there is no categorical immunity for naturally occurring water or ice.
How long do I have to file a slip and fall lawsuit in Louisiana?
Two years from the date of injury for accidents occurring on or after July 1, 2024, under La. Civ. Code art. 3493.1. For injuries before July 1, 2024, the former 1-year period generally applies. There is no pre-suit notice requirement for government defendants, but you must request citation of the State within 90 days of filing. Missing the prescriptive period almost certainly bars your claim.
Can I recover if I was partly at fault for my fall?
It depends on when you were injured. For accidents on or after January 1, 2026, Louisiana's modified-51 rule applies: you can recover if you are 50% or less at fault, but recover nothing at 51% or more. Your damages are reduced by your fault percentage below that threshold. For injuries before January 1, 2026, Louisiana's prior pure comparative fault rule applies and allows partial recovery even if you were mostly at fault.
What special rules apply to merchant slip and fall cases in Louisiana?
La. R.S. 9:2800.6 governs falls in retail stores, restaurants, and other merchant premises. Beyond the standard negligence elements, you must prove a 'temporal element': the hazardous condition was either created by the merchant, or it existed long enough that a reasonably diligent inspection would have found it. This heightened burden makes evidence like surveillance footage, maintenance logs, and witness accounts of how long a spill was present critically important.
How much is a Louisiana slip and fall claim worth?
Value depends on the severity of your injuries, your medical costs, lost income, and your percentage of fault. There is no cap on non-economic damages in ordinary premises liability cases. Claims against the state or a political subdivision are capped at $500,000 per person under La. R.S. 13:5106, but that cap excludes property damage, medical care and related benefits, and past and future lost earnings, which are recoverable on top of it. Under the modified-51 rule (post-January 1, 2026), your recovery is reduced by your fault share and eliminated at 51% fault. Use the Louisiana slip and fall settlement calculator to model an estimate before consulting an attorney.
Updates
Corrected the description of Broussard v. State and Bufkin v. Felipe's to what each Louisiana Supreme Court opinion actually held, removing an unsupported claim about lower-court inconsistency.
Corrected our description of Farrell v. Circle K Stores (La. 2023), which granted the merchant summary judgment rather than denying it, and clarified that the $500,000 government-liability cap under La. R.S. 13:5106 excludes medical care, lost earnings, and property damage.
Corrected six Louisiana citation links (five Civil Code/Revised Statutes articles and the Farrell v. Circle K case citation) that were pointing to unrelated Louisiana Legislature pages, including two blank articles and an unrelated Medicaid statute; the underlying legal statements were already accurate.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Louisiana Revised Statutes
§ 9:2800.6Burden of proof in claims against merchantsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. A merchant owes a duty to persons who use his premises to exercise reasonable care to keep his aisles, passageways, and floors in a reasonably safe condition. This duty includes a reasonable effort to keep the premises free of any hazardous conditions which reasonably might give rise to damage. B. In a negligence claim brought against a merchant by a person lawfully on the merchant's premises for damages as a result of an injury, death, or loss sustained because of a fall due to a condition existing in or on a merchant's premises, the claimant shall have the burden of proving, in addition to all other elements of his cause of action, all of the following: (1) The condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the claimant and that risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable. (2) The merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which caused the damage, prior to the occurrence. (3) The merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. In determining reasonable care, the absence of a written or verbal uniform cleanup or safety procedure is insufficient, alone, to prove failure to exercise reasonable care. C.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 541 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Supreme Court of Louisiana 1997, 699 So. 2d 1081)“…case to readdress the question of constructive notice under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 (1991). Because the statute is clear an…”
- Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. (Supreme Court of Louisiana 2000, 764 So. 2d 37)“…ing that plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof under La. R.S. 9:2800.6, [1] as interpreted by this court in…”
- Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Supreme Court of Louisiana 1998, 708 So. 2d 362)“…riance is unreasonably dangerous. The trial court, applying La. R.S. 9:2800.6, agreed with the plaintiff's expert and…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 13:5101Title and applicationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. This Part shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana Governmental Claims Act". B. This Part applies to any suit in contract or for injury to person or property against the state, a state agency, an officer or employee of the state or a state agency arising out of the discharge of his official duties or within the course and scope of his employment, or a political subdivision of the state, as defined herein, or against an officer or employee of a political subdivision arising out of the discharge of his official duties or within the course and scope of his employment. The provisions of this Part shall not supersede the provisions of R.S. 15:1171 et seq. or R.S. 15:1181 et seq.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 49 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Scott v. Clark (Louisiana Court of Appeal 1991, 583 So. 2d 938)“…of governmental entities for purposes of La.R.S. 13:5105. La.R.S. 13:5101 provides as follows: This Part applie…”
- Fecke v. Board of Supervisors (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2015, 2015 La.App. 1 Cir. 0017)“…brought pursuant to the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act, La. R.S. 13:5101-5113 (“Act”). The Act applies to any su…”
- Simmons v. Turner (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2004, 888 So. 2d 357)“…vailable pursuant to the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act, La.R.S. 13:5101, et seq. The trial court granted the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 13:5106LimitationsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
A. No suit against the state or a state agency or political subdivision shall be instituted in any court other than a Louisiana state court. B.(1) The total liability of the state and political subdivisions for all damages for personal injury to any one person, including all claims and derivative claims, exclusive of property damages, medical care and related benefits and loss of earnings, and loss of future earnings, as provided in this Section, shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars, regardless of the number of suits filed or claims made for the personal injury to that person. (2) The total liability of the state and political subdivisions for all damages for wrongful death of any one person, including all claims and derivative claims, exclusive of property damages, medical care and related benefits and loss of earnings or loss of support, and loss of future support, as provided in this Section, shall not exceed five hundred thousand dollars, regardless of the number of suits filed or claims made for the wrongful death of that person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 195 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Chamberlain v. State, Through DOTD (Supreme Court of Louisiana 1993, 624 So. 2d 874)“…g on general damages in a personal injury suit set forth in La.R.S. 13:5106(B)(1) is unconstitutional under La. Con…”
- Jacobs v. City of Bunkie (Supreme Court of Louisiana 1999, 737 So. 2d 14)“…ransp. and Development, 624 So.2d 874 (La.1993), found La. R.S. 13:5106(B)(1), limiting damage awards against t…”
- Lockett v. STATE, DOTD (Supreme Court of Louisiana 2004, 869 So. 2d 87)“…uestion of whether multiple $500,000 caps are allowed under La. R.S. 13:5106(B)(2) in wrongful death actions brought…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Louisiana Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines
§ 13:5107Service of citation and processIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A.(1) In all suits filed against the state of Louisiana or a state agency, citation and service may be obtained by citation and service on the attorney general of Louisiana, or on any employee in his office above the age of sixteen years, or any other proper officer or person, depending upon the identity of the named defendant and in accordance with the laws of this state, and on the department, board, commission, or agency head or person, depending upon the identity of the named defendant and in accordance with the laws of this state, and on the department, board, commission, or agency head or person, depending upon the identity of the named defendant and the identity of the named board, commission, department, agency, or officer through which or through whom suit is to be filed against. (2) Service shall be requested upon the attorney general within ninety days of filing suit. This shall be sufficient to comply with the requirements of Subsection D of this Section and also Code of Civil Procedure Article 1201(C).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 143 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Naquin v. Titan Indem. Co. (Supreme Court of Louisiana 2001, 779 So. 2d 704)“…ed certiorari in this case to consider the applicability of La. R.S. 13:5107(D) to suits in which the cause of actio…”
- Whitley v. State Ex Rel. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University Agricultural Mechanical College Ex Rel. Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans-University Campus (Supreme Court of Louisiana 2011, 66 So. 3d 470)“…was sufficiently served pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1201, La. R.S. 13:5107 and 39:1538. Nonetheless, servic…”
- Tranchant v. State (Supreme Court of Louisiana 2009, 5 So. 3d 832)“…stitutes a valid and timely request for service pursuant to La. R.S. 13:5107(D)(1). Specifically, we are called to d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Louisiana Civil Code
§ 2317.1Damage caused by ruin, vice, or defect in thingsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
The owner or custodian of a thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its ruin, vice, or defect, only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the ruin, vice, or defect which caused the damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care. Nothing in this Article shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 130 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Williams v. Placid Oil Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2017, 16 La.App. 3 Cir. 839)“…d failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the damage. La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1. 7 Plaintiffs specifically plead and p…”
- Mayes v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2012, 12 La.App. 3 Cir. 465)“…s of their chairs for defects. Plaintiff also contends that La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1 and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a…”
- Crooks v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Assoc. (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2012, 97 So. 3d 671)“…brought a claim against LCMH alleging liability pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1. A trial was held the week of May 16, 2…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Louisiana Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
§ 2322Damage caused by ruin of buildingIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
The owner of a building is answerable for the damage occasioned by its ruin, when this is caused by neglect to repair it, or when it is the result of a vice or defect in its original* construction. However, he is answerable for damages only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the vice or defect which caused the damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care. Nothing in this Article shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case. *"Original" has no counterpart in French text.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 58 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Scarberry v. Entergy Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2014, 2013 La.App. 4 Cir. 0214)“…ed under the second prong of the risk-utility inquiry under La. Civil Code art. 2322. Under Louisiana law, a defendant gener…”
- Migliori v. Willows Apartments (Louisiana Court of Appeal 1999, 727 So. 2d 1258)“…d that defendants are therefore strictly liable pursuant to La. Civ.Code art. 2322. Plaintiffs also argued that defendants…”
- Grieff v. Parish of Jefferson (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2000, 98 La.App. 5 Cir. 1262)“…sue, concluded that the Parish of Jefferson is liable under La. Civ.Code art. 2322 as the owner of the building where the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2323Comparative faultIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
A.(1) In any action for damages where a person suffers injury, death, or loss, the degree or percentage of fault attributable to all persons causing or contributing to the injury, death, or loss shall be determined, regardless of whether the person is a party to the action or a nonparty, and regardless of the person's insolvency, ability to pay, immunity by statute, including but not limited to the provisions of R.S. 23:1032, or that the other person's identity is not known or reasonably ascertainable. (2) If a person suffers injury, death, or loss partly as the result of his own negligence and partly as a result of the fault of another person or persons, then the following shall apply: (a) If the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the person suffering injury, death, or loss is equal to or greater than fifty-one percent, then the person suffering injury, death, or loss shall not be entitled to recover damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 187 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc. (1988) held assumption of risk no longer bars recovery and that such plaintiff conduct is judged under article 2323's comparative fault reduction. Keith v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. (1997) held the 1996 amendment to article 2323 procedural and retroactive, so an immune employer's fault is quantified.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc. (Supreme Court of Louisiana 1988, 521 So. 2d 1123)✓Answering a question certified by the Fifth Circuit in a suit over a man paralyzed and killed by a dive into the shallow end of a motel pool, the court held assumption of risk no longer totally bars recovery; that conduct falls under Article 2323 and only reduces damages.
- Miller v. Lammico (Supreme Court of Louisiana 2008, 973 So. 2d 693)✓A jury divided fault among three doctors whose missed diagnosis let a pelvic infection destroy Mrs. Miller's uterus; the court held Article 2323's fault percentages apply to the full damages award before the medical malpractice cap, even where the plaintiff bears no fault.
- Keith v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co. (Supreme Court of Louisiana 1997, 694 So. 2d 180)✓An oilfield worker hurt by rented slips sued the equipment lessor, which pleaded the fault of his compensation-immune employer; the court held the 1996 amendment extending Article 2323 to persons with statutory immunity was procedural and applied retroactively to that case.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Louisiana Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Louisiana Dashcam Laws: Mounting, Recording, and Evidence Rules, Motorcycle Accident Laws in Louisiana (2026): Deadlines
§ 3492Repealedcited in 12 of our articles
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 411 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Louisiana courts applied article 3492's one-year delictual period as running from the day damage is sustained. Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc. (1992) held a claim prescribed once the plaintiff knowingly sustained appreciable damage. Bailey v. Khoury (2005) found no proof that earlier damage had manifested with sufficient certainty.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc. (Supreme Court of Louisiana 1992, 593 So. 2d 351)✓A businessman sued an accounting firm over a negligent tax return more than a year after the IRS told his advisers the return was wrong and he began paying accountant and lawyer fees; the Louisiana Supreme Court held appreciable harm started prescription under article 3492.
- Bailey v. Khoury (Supreme Court of Louisiana 2005, 891 So. 2d 1268)✓A mother sued doctors and pharmacies over birth defects tied to Depakote taken while pregnant; the Louisiana Supreme Court, applying article 3492's rule that prescription runs from the day damage is sustained, held the child's claim accrued only at live birth.
- David v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc. (Supreme Court of Louisiana 2003, 849 So. 2d 38)✓A patient who contracted hepatitis C from a 1979 hospital transfusion sued in strict liability 20 years later; the Louisiana Supreme Court held the claim arose out of patient care and was prescribed under R.S. 9:5628, overruling cases that had routed such claims to article 3492.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Louisiana Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Louisiana Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, Louisiana Defamation Laws: Libel, Slander & Suing (2026)
§ 3493.1Delictual actionsIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
Delictual actions are subject to a liberative prescription of two years. This prescription commences to run from the day that injury or damage is sustained. It does not run against minors or interdicts in actions involving permanent disability and brought pursuant to the Louisiana Products Liability Act or state law governing product liability actions in effect at the time of the injury or damage.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana have applied art. 3493.1 prospectively only. Lin (2026) and Geary (2026) held its two-year prescription reaches delictual actions arising after July 1, 2024, so the former one-year period of art. 3492 still governs torts occurring before that date.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lin (District Court, E.D. Louisiana 2026)✓Property owners counterclaimed over post-Hurricane Ida mitigation work they say gutted their buildings; the court read article 3493.1's two-year prescription as prospective only, so the one-year period governed, and denied summary judgment on a waived, fact-disputed defense.
- Geary (District Court, E.D. Louisiana 2026)✓A grandmother sued over a principal's alleged January 22, 2024 body-slam of her grandson; the court held article 3493.1's two-year period reaches only torts arising after July 1, 2024, so the one-year period applied and the February 2025 suit was time barred.
- Stella Johnson, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum Corporation, et al. (District Court, E.D. Louisiana 2026)✓Residents suing over an August 2023 refinery fire moved in November 2024 to widen the class; the court noted article 3493.1's two-year period applies only prospectively, applied the former one-year period, and held the expanded class definition prescribed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Truck Accident Laws in Louisiana (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Louisiana Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- La. R.S. 9:2800.6 (Liability of merchants for injuries on their premises)(legis.la.gov).gov
- La. Civ. Code art. 2317.1 (Damage caused by defect in things)(legis.la.gov).gov
- La. Civ. Code art. 2322 (Damage caused by ruin of building)(legis.la.gov).gov
- La. Civ. Code art. 2323 (Comparative fault, as amended by 2025 La. Acts No. 15, eff. Jan. 1, 2026)(legis.la.gov).gov
- La. Civ. Code art. 3493.1 (Two-year liberative prescription for delictual actions, Acts 2024, No. 423)(legis.la.gov).gov
- La. R.S. 13:5101 et seq.; La. R.S. 13:5106 (Governmental Claims Act, $500k per-person cap)(legis.la.gov).gov
- Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2022-00849 (La. 3/17/23), 359 So.3d 467 (open-and-obvious = breach/risk-utility factor, not a duty bar)(law.justia.com)
- Bearden v. K & A of Monroe, LLC, 55,746-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. 7/17/24) (restating Farrell: merchant entitled to summary judgment because the puddle was not unreasonably dangerous)(la2nd.org)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.