Stephen J. Holliday v. The Estate of Betsy Beaubouef, Rudolph Beaubouef, in his capacity of administrator of the Estate, David Beaubouef and Michelle M. Jones Beaubouef, Rudolph Beaubouef, Jr., The University Club Plantation Homeowners' Association, Inc, Liberty Personal Insura

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2022 CA 1112
STEPHEN J. HOLLIDAY, ET AL
VERSUS
THE ESTATE OF BETSY BEAUBOUEF, RUDOLPH BEAUBOUEF, IN HIS
CAPACITY OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE, DAVID BEAUBOUEF
1 AND MICHELLE M. JONES BEAUBOUEF, RUDOLPH BEAUBOUEF, JR.,
THE UNIVERSTIY CLUB PLANTATION HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION,
INC., LIBERTY PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Judgment Rendered: APR 18 2023
Appealed from the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Suit Number 700813
Honorable Wilson E. Fields, Presiding
Carey R. Holliday Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Baton Rouge, LA Stephen J. Holliday
Mickey S. DeLaup Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
James K. Sticker David Beaubouef & Michelle M. Jones
Travis J. Beslin
Metairie, LA
and
D. Russell Holwadel
Heather England Reznik
New Orleans, LA
J. Murphy DeLaune Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Baton Rouge, LA State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company
Renee M. Credeur Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
Brad J. Brumfield Rudolph Beaubouef, Rudolph
Baton Rouge, LA Anthony Beaubouef, & the Estate of
Betsy Beaubouef
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., THERIOT, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
GUIDRY, C. J.
Plaintiffs/Appellants, Stephen J. Holliday and Hollea Holliday, individually
and on behalf of their minor child, James Hollis Holliday, appeal from a judgment
of the trial court sustaining an exception raising the objection of no cause of action
filed by defendants/ appellees, David Beaubouef and Michelle M. Jones, and
dismissing plaintiffs' claims against them with prejudice. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 31, 2019, Stephen Holliday was riding as a passenger on a four -
wheeled vehicle that was pulling a trailer around their neighborhood, the University
Club, for trick -or -treating. The trailer was hauling both children and adult
passengers, including Stephen' s wife, Hollea, and their son, .lames. While stopped
on Memorial Tower Drive, Stephen exited the four -wheeler and was standing next
to the trailer when he was struck by a vehicle being driven by Betsy Beaubouef.
Hollea, who was sitting in the trailer, was also struck by Ms. Beaubouefs sideview
mirror. Both Stephen and Hollea sustained injuries from the accident.
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a petition for damages naming as defendants,
among others, the estate of Ms. Beaubouef; Rudolph Beauboeuf, Ms. Beaubouefs
former spouse; David Beaubouef and Michelle M. Jones Beaubouef; and University
Club Plantation Homeowners Association, Inc.' Plaintiffs alleged that at the time of
the accident, Ms. Beaubouef had just left the residence of her son and daughter- in-
law, David and Michelle, which was located some 150- 200 feet up the road.
Plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Beaubouef was intoxicated at the time of the accident and
that David and Michelle had hosted a party and supplied sufficient alcohol to Ms.
Beaubouef such that she was unable to safely operate her motor vehicle. Plaintiffs
1 University Club Plantation Homeowners Association, Inc. was erroneously named as University
Club Plantation Homeowner' s Club, Inc. in plaintiffs' petition.
V
alleged that David and Michelle were not subject to immunity and were liable to
plaintiffs for supplying alcoholic beverages to Ms. Beaubouef, whose intoxication
caused injuries to plaintiffs, and for failing to prevent Ms. Beaubouef from operating
her motor vehicle when they knew, or should have known, that she was too
intoxicated to drive. Plaintiffs further alleged it is tradition in University Club
subdivision to provide alcoholic beverages to adults as well as candy to trick -or -
treaters on Halloween, thereby effectuating a gathering on a premises that extended
to the entire neighborhood.
Thereafter, David and Michelle filed an exception raising the objection of no
cause of action, asserting that based on the facts as alleged in the petition, and the
immunity from liability provided to social hosts by La. R.S. 9: 2800. 1, plaintiffs'
petition is devoid of any factual allegations sufficient to state a cause of action
against them.
Following a hearing on the exception, the trial court signed a judgment on
April 13, 2021, sustaining the exception and granting plaintiffs thirty days to amend
their petition to state a cause of action against David and Michelle. Thereafter, on
May 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed a First Supplemental Petition, adding paragraphs
alleging that Ms. Beaubouef had urged that she suffered from a mental deficiency or
dementia such that she lacked the ability to determine right from wrong and that such
dementia was the proximate cause of her actions and plaintiffs' injuries, that David
and Michelle knew or should have known of the mental condition suffered by Ms.
Beaubouef, that David and Michelle had a duty to stop Ms. Beaubouef from leaving
their home, and that the breach of this duty was the proximate cause of plaintiffs'
injuries.
David and Michelle thereafter filed another exception raising the objection of
no cause of action in response to plaintiffs' first supplemental petition, asserting
plaintiffs' petition still contained all of the prior allegations that the trial court
4
already ruled were insufficient to state a cause of action against David and Michelle,
and the new allegations regarding alleged dementia and duty of David and Michelle
were devoid of factual or legal support and failed to state a cause of action.
Following a hearing, the trial court signed a judgment on May 26, 2022,
sustaining the exception and dismissing plaintiffs' claims against David and
Michelle with prejudice. Plaintiffs now appeal from the trial court' s judgment,
asserting the trial court erred in sustaining the exception and misinterpreting La. R. S.
9: 2800. 1 to bar the cause of action against David and Michelle.2
DISCUSSION
The function of the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of
action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law
affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition. Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish
Government, 19- 1555, p. 10 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 8/ 21), 322 So. 3d 1268, 1278, writ
denied, 21- 00800 ( La. 11 / 3/ 21), 326 So. 3d 898. The exception is triable on the face
of the pleading, and for purposes of determining issues raised by the exception, the
well -pleaded facts in the pleading must be accepted as true. Terrebonne Parish
Consolidated Government v. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, 21- 0486,
p. 6 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 12/ 30/ 21), 340 So. 3d 940, 944. The burden of demonstrating
that a petition fails to state a cause of action is upon the mover. Succession of King,
21- 1386, p. 3 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 28122), 342 So. 3d 367, 370, writ denied, 22- 01081
La. 10/ 18/ 22), 348 So. 3d 730. In reviewing a trial court' s ruling sustaining an
exception raising the objection of no cause of action, appellate courts conduct a de
novo review, because the exception raises a question of law, and the trial court' s
decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition. Stevens, 19- 1555 at p. 10,
322 So. 3d at 1279.
2 Plaintiffs do not raise on appeal any error by the trial court in failing to find that they stated a
cause of action with regard to Ms. Beaubouef s alleged mental deficiency. As such, that issue is
not before this court on appeal.
5
In the instant case, plaintiffs filed a supplemental petition alleging that David
and Michelle were liable for their injuries because they hosted a Halloween party
and supplied sufficient alcohol to Ms. Beaubouef such that Ms. Beaubouef was
unable to safely operate her motor vehicle. Plaintiffs further alleged that David and
Michelle are not subject to immunity and are liable to plaintiffs for supplying
alcoholic beverages to Ms. Beaubouef at their party and for failing to prevent Ms.
Beaubouef from operating her motor vehicle when they knew, or should have
known, that she was too intoxicated to drive.
In 1986, the Louisiana Legislature enacted La. R.S. 9: 2800. 1, entitled
Limitation of liability for loss connected with sale, serving, or furnishing of
alcoholic beverages," with the express purpose of placing the responsibility for
consequences of intoxication on the intoxicated person, rather than the server of the
alcohol.
Aucoin v. Rochel, 08- 1180, p. 7 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 12/ 23/ 08), S So. 3d 197,
201, writ denied, 09- 0122 ( La. 3127109), 5 So. 3d 143. Subsection ( A) of La. R.S.
9:2800. 1 provides, specifically, that " the consumption of intoxicating beverages,
rather than the sale or serving or furnishing of such beverages, is the proximate cause
of any injury ... inflicted by an intoxicated person upon himself or upon another
person." In furtherance of this stated goal, La. R.S. 9: 2800. 1( C)( 1) provides:
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no social host who
serves or furnishes any intoxicating beverage of either high or low
alcoholic content to a person over the age for the lawful purchase
thereof shall be liable to such person or to any other person or to the
estate, successors, or survivors of either for any injury suffered off the
premises, including wrongful death and property damage, because of
the intoxication of the person to whom the intoxicating beverages were
served or furnished.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 9: 2800. 1 is referred to as " anti -dram shop"
legislation because it provides absolute immunity to vendors and social hosts who
serve alcoholic beverages to a person over the age for lawful purchase thereof. See
Mayhorn v. McKinney, 34, 789, p. 7 ( La. App. 2nd Cir. 6120121), 793 So. 2d 225,
au
229. The only exceptions to the limitation of liability expressly provided for are
when alcoholic beverages are sold or served to minors and to any person who causes
or contributes to the consumption of alcoholic beverages by force or by falsely
representing that a beverage contains no alcohol. See Aucoin, 08- 1180 at p. 8, 5 So.
3d at 201.
The factual allegations as contained in plaintiffs' supplemental petition show
that David and Michelle were social hosts who provided alcoholic beverages at their
Halloween party to Ms. Beaubouef, who was over the lawful age for purchase of
alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, the injury to plaintiffs was alleged to have
occurred " some 150- 200 feet up the road" from David and Michelle' s residence. As
such, we find that the clear language of La. R. S. 9: 2800. 1 ( C)( 1) provides immunity
to David and Michelle, and the trial court correctly sustained David and Michelle' s
exception raising the objection of no cause of action.3
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. All costs
of this appeal are assessed to plaintiffs, Stephen J. Holliday and Hollea Holliday,
individually and on behalf of their minor child, James Hollis Holliday.
AFFIRMED.
3 Plaintiffs raise on appeal that " premises" is not defined in La. R.S. 9: 2800. 1 and the trial court
erred in its interpretation of that term. However, we find that the plaintiffs' supplemental petition
failed to set forth any facts alleging that David and Michelle' s particular party extended beyond
their residence. The court is not required to accept conclusory allegations or allegations of law as
true for purposes of ruling on an exception of no cause of action. Christian Schools, Inc. v.
Louisiana High School Athletic Association, 20- 0762, p. 5 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 5118122), 342 So. 3d
1068, 1072, writ denied, 22- 01015 ( La. 10112122), 348 So. 3d 78. As such, we find plaintiffs'
argument in this regard to be without merit.
7