Although I do not necessarily find error in the court of appeal's amendment of plaintiff's increased judgment for the serious injury of loss of an eye, I question the initial threshold finding of liability in this case. In my view, in light of the number of inmates in our correctional system and the possibility of similar circumstances arising again, I would grant and docket this matter to conduct a full tort analysis on the issue of liability. See State ex rel. Jackson v. Phelps , 672 So.2d 665, 667 (La. 1996) ; and Parker v. State , 282 So.2d 483 (La. 1973).
Pete v. State, 256 So. 3d 983 (2018)
Nov. 20, 2018
·
Louisiana Supreme Court
·
No. 2018-C-1252
256 So. 3d 983
Alvin PETE
v.
State of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.
No. 2018-C-1252
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
November 20, 2018
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ST. MARTIN
Writ denied.
CLARK, J., would grant and assigns reasons:
I agree fully with the reasons stated by Justice Crichton. Although penal authorities have a duty to use reasonable care in preventing harm after they have reasonable cause to anticipate it, a penal institution is not an insurer of an inmate against attacks by other inmates. State ex rel. Jackson v. Phelps , 95-2294 (La. 4/8/96), 672 So.2d 665, 667. Therefore, I would grant and docket the matter in order to perform a duty-risk analysis.