Louisiana LPLA — what are the four exclusive theories of products liability?

Louisiana Products Liability Act (La. R.S. 9:2800.51 et seq.): (1) Exclusivity: the LPLA is the exclusive remedy against a manufacturer for damage caused by its product. A plaintiff cannot pursue Civil Code negligence (Art. 2315) or redhibition (warranty of fitness for ordinary use) as an alternative to LPLA against a manufacturer for personal injury from a product defect; (2) Theory 1 — Construction/Composition Defect: the product deviated from the manufacturer's specifications or design in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous. A pressure vessel with an incorrectly welded seam that was shipped to an Ascension Parish chemical plant has a construction defect — the design was fine, but the individual unit was made incorrectly; (3) Theory 2 — Design Defect: the product was designed in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous and there was an alternative design feasible that would have reduced the danger without substantially impairing the product's utility. The plaintiff must typically show (a) there was a feasible alternative design; (b) the alternative design would have reduced the danger; and (c) the defendant failed to adopt it; (4) Theory 3 — Inadequate Warning: the manufacturer failed to provide an adequate warning of a risk associated with the product's normal use that was known or reasonably knowable to the manufacturer. Product warnings must be specific enough to alert the ordinary user to the nature and severity of the risk. This theory covers offshore drilling equipment with inadequate operational hazard warnings, petrochemical plant maintenance chemicals without adequate toxicity labeling, and consumer products with insufficient cautionary language; (5) Theory 4 — Breach of Express Warranty: the product failed to conform to an express warranty the manufacturer made about specific product characteristics. The warranty must have been made by the manufacturer (not a dealer), must have been an affirmation of fact or promise about a specific characteristic, and the product must have failed to conform to that warranty; (6) Seller liability: the LPLA applies to manufacturers — not necessarily to sellers who did not manufacture the product. A Louisiana retail seller or distributor who did not manufacture the defective product may not be liable under the LPLA but may face redhibition (Civil Code warranty) claims. Importers and those who hold themselves out as manufacturers are treated as manufacturers under the LPLA.

Louisiana premises liability — Arts. 2317.1 and 2322 and how they apply to French Quarter buildings

Louisiana premises liability (La. C.C. Arts. 2317.1 and 2322): (1) Art. 2317.1 general custodial liability: the owner or custodian of a defective thing is liable for damage caused by that defect if: (a) the owner/custodian knew or should have known of the defect; (b) the damage could have been prevented by reasonable care; and (c) the owner failed to exercise that care. This is a negligence-based standard that requires knowledge of the defect before liability attaches; (2) Art. 2322 building ruin and defect: the owner of a building is liable for damage caused by the ruin of the building or by a defect in its construction. This article was originally interpreted as strict liability (no fault requirement), though modern Louisiana courts have softened the standard somewhat by requiring that the building owner knew or should have known of the ruin or construction defect. Art. 2322 applies specifically to buildings (structures), not to movable things; (3) French Quarter application: New Orleans's French Quarter contains buildings dating from the 18th and 19th centuries. Cast-iron and wrought-iron galleries (balconies) projecting over Bourbon Street, Decatur Street, and Royal Street are architectural features of the Quarter. These balconies are subject to corrosion, structural fatigue, and overloading. When a Bourbon Street balcony collapses under the weight of Mardi Gras revelers, Art. 2322 is the primary liability theory against the building owner — the building's defective structure (a balcony inadequate to support anticipated loads) caused the collapse; (4) Comparison with common law: Louisiana's Art. 2317.1 does not use the common law invitee/licensee/trespasser classification for duty analysis. Louisiana tort law asks whether the owner/custodian was at fault in maintaining the defective condition — the entrant's status is one factor in the analysis but not a definitional limit on the duty; (5) Merchant liability rule: La. R.S. 9:2800.6 provides specific rules for premises liability against merchants — a merchant (retail store) is only liable for a slip-and-fall injury if: the merchant created the unreasonably dangerous condition; the merchant had actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to the injury and failed to remedy it. The claimant must prove these elements — it is not sufficient to simply show a wet floor; the merchant's knowledge or creation of the hazard must be established; (6) Hotels and vacation rentals in New Orleans: New Orleans's hotel industry (the French Quarter alone has thousands of hotel rooms) and the growing vacation rental market on platforms like Airbnb create Art. 2317.1 premises liability for hazardous conditions in guest rooms, common areas, pool decks, and balconies.

Louisiana pure comparative fault in personal injury — how does it differ from neighboring states?

Louisiana pure comparative fault vs. neighboring states: (1) Louisiana pure comparative fault (La. C.C. Art. 2323): recovery reduced by plaintiff's fault percentage but never eliminated by plaintiff fault alone. A plaintiff 90% at fault still recovers 10% of damages; (2) Vs. Mississippi (modified comparative fault 51% bar): a Mississippi plaintiff more than 50% at fault recovers nothing. A Louisiana plaintiff in the same scenario recovers 49% less but still recovers something; (3) Vs. Alabama (pure contributory negligence): any Alabama plaintiff fault eliminates recovery entirely. In Louisiana, ANY degree of plaintiff fault only reduces recovery proportionally; (4) Vs. Texas (modified comparative fault 51% bar): Texas bars recovery if plaintiff more than 50% at fault. Louisiana allows recovery regardless; (5) Comparative fault allocation and third parties: Louisiana includes in the fault allocation all parties whose fault contributed, including: the plaintiff; all named defendants; third parties brought in by defendants; and even immune parties (employer, other accident participants) whose fault is allocated for the purpose of reducing plaintiff recovery. Allocating fault to an immune party (the plaintiff's employer, who is covered by WC exclusivity) reduces what the plaintiff can recover from the non-immune defendants; (6) Pedestrian vs. vehicle: Louisiana comparative fault applies when a pedestrian is partially at fault for their own vehicle accident — crossing against the light, jaywalking in New Orleans's French Quarter late at night, stepping into traffic outside the crosswalk. The pedestrian recovers, but reduced by their own fault percentage. This is different from Alabama, where a pedestrian even slightly at fault recovers nothing.

Louisiana wrongful death and survival actions — Civil Code framework

Louisiana wrongful death and survival actions (La. C.C. Arts. 2315.1 and 2315.2): (1) Survival action (Art. 2315.1): the claims of an injured person survive that person's death — the cause of action that accrued before death passes to the beneficiaries (surviving spouse, children, parents, siblings in order) who sue on behalf of the decedent. The survival action recovers the decedent's own pain and suffering, medical expenses, and other losses between the injury and the death; (2) Wrongful death action (Art. 2315.2): a separate cause of action vests in the beneficiaries themselves for their own losses caused by the death — the loss of love and affection, loss of financial support, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses. The wrongful death action is compensatory — it measures the beneficiaries' loss, unlike Alabama's purely punitive wrongful death measure; (3) Priority of beneficiaries: the same priority structure applies to both survival and wrongful death actions: surviving spouse and children have priority; parents recover if no spouse or children; siblings if no parents. In Louisiana's community property system, the community property interest of the surviving spouse affects the analysis of financial loss calculations; (4) Louisiana does not use Alabama's punitive wrongful death model: Louisiana wrongful death damages are fully compensatory — the loss of the loved one's future income, guidance, companionship, and the survivors' grief. An actuarial present value calculation for future income loss is standard in Louisiana wrongful death cases involving working-age decedents; (5) Medical malpractice wrongful death: wrongful death from medical malpractice in Louisiana is also subject to the Medical Malpractice Act's compensation cap (discussed in the medical malpractice article) — but the survival action for the decedent's own pre-death pain and suffering is separately recoverable and may not be subject to the same cap analysis; (6) Prescription: both the survival action and the wrongful death action in Louisiana are subject to the 1-year prescriptive period (La. C.C. Art. 3492), running from the date of death.

Louisiana merchant slip-and-fall rule — La. R.S. 9:2800.6 explained

Louisiana merchant liability for slip-and-fall (La. R.S. 9:2800.6): (1) The merchant liability statute: Louisiana enacted a specific statute governing premises liability of merchants (retail establishments and similar) for claimant injuries arising from conditions on the merchant's property. The statute imposes specific pleading and proof requirements that go beyond the general Art. 2317.1 framework; (2) Elements the claimant must prove: (a) the condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the claimant and that risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable; (b) the merchant either created the condition OR had actual or constructive notice of the condition before the incident; and (c) the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. The claimant must PROVE the merchant's notice — it is insufficient to show only that a hazardous condition existed; (3) 'Constructive notice' definition: the statute defines constructive notice as requiring the existence of a condition for a period of time such that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care. A freshly spilled liquid on a Walmart floor for 30 seconds does not constitute constructive notice; the same liquid present for 20 minutes likely does; (4) Why it matters: the Louisiana merchant liability statute eliminated the old 'customer-in-store slip-and-fall = automatic claim' assumption. Without proof of the merchant's creation or notice of the hazard, the case fails as a matter of law regardless of how seriously the plaintiff was injured; (5) Casino premises liability in Louisiana: Louisiana casinos (Harrah's New Orleans Casino, Golden Nugget Lake Charles, L'Auberge Baton Rouge, Hollywood Casino Baton Rouge) are merchant premises subject to La. R.S. 9:2800.6. A casino floor is a high-traffic commercial premise with frequent liquid spills from beverages and condensation from drink glasses. Casino slip-and-fall cases require establishing how long the hazard was present and whether the casino's floor maintenance protocols provided reasonable inspection intervals; (6) New Orleans convention center and hotel convention liability: New Orleans is a major US convention destination (the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center is one of the largest in the US). Convention center slip-and-fall and crowd injury cases at the Convention Center and adjacent properties involve the entity's premises liability under Art. 2317.1 combined with the notice requirements applicable to large commercial venues.

Personal Injury Laws in Louisiana (2026)

Louisiana Personal Injury: damage documentation, deadline control, and when review matters

Clearer statewide personal injury guidance for Louisiana built around damage documentation, the overlooked paperwork that changes strategy, and the official path readers usually need first.

Reviewed January 2026 2 min read Official-source grounded Ver en Espanol En Español

Key Takeaways

Civil Code Art. 2315 = Louisiana tort foundation ('Every act whatever...obliges him by whose fault...to repair it'); LPLA (La. R.S. 9:2800.51) = EXCLUSIVE products liability against manufacturers — 4 theories ONLY: construction defect, design defect, failure to warn, breach of express warranty; no Civil Code negligence alternative against manufacturers
Premises: Art. 2317.1 = owner/custodian knew or should have known of defect (negligence-based); Art. 2322 = building owner liability for RUIN OF BUILDING or construction defect (French Quarter iron balcony collapse on Bourbon Street = Art. 2322 paradigm case); no invitee/licensee/trespasser classification (Louisiana uses fault-based approach)
Merchant liability § 9:2800.6: claimant must prove merchant CREATED condition OR had actual/constructive notice; constructive notice = condition present long enough for reasonable inspection to discover; NO automatic liability for wet floors; casino/hotel convention center premises follow § 9:2800.6 + Art. 2317.1
Pure comparative fault applies to PI: pedestrian 60% at fault jaywalking in French Quarter still recovers 40%; wrongful death = compensatory (Arts. 2315.1 survival + 2315.2 wrongful death); survival = decedent's pre-death pain/medical; wrongful death = beneficiaries' loss of love/financial support; priority: spouse/children → parents → siblings; 1-yr prescription from death
All claims: 1-year prescription (Art. 3492) applies to ALL LA tort claims including PI; contra non valentem discovery toll applied narrowly; protective lawsuit filing before 1-yr standard LA practice even while settlement negotiates; minor = tolled; LPLA design defect requires feasible alternative design proof

Key Numbers — Louisiana All 50 states →

Filing Deadline 1 year

Fault Rule Pure Comparative

Insurance System At-Fault

Key Statute La. Civ. Code art. 3492

Compare with another state → Official source ↗

The Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), enacted in 1988 and codified at La. R.S. 9:2800.51 through 9:2800.60, fundamentally restructured products liability law in Louisiana by making it the exclusive remedy for damage claims against manufacturers based on characteristics of their products. A Louisiana plaintiff cannot sue a manufacturer in products liability based on negligence, strict liability under the Civil Code, or any theory outside the LPLA's framework. The LPLA specifies exactly four theories under which a manufacturer can be held liable: (1) the product had a construction or composition defect (it deviated from its intended design or specifications); (2) the product had a design defect (the design itself was unreasonably dangerous); (3) the manufacturer failed to provide an adequate warning of a product risk; and (4) the product failed to conform to an express warranty the manufacturer made about it. These four theories are the complete universe of Louisiana products liability — no additional theories exist, and no Civil Code articles (other than those the LPLA itself adopts) supplement this framework. For Louisiana consumers injured by defective industrial equipment in the petrochemical plants of Ascension Parish, by defective offshore drilling equipment in the Gulf of Mexico, or by defective food products in New Orleans restaurants, the LPLA controls the claim.

Premises liability in Louisiana draws from two distinct Civil Code articles. La. C.C. Art. 2317.1 governs the liability of an owner or custodian for damage caused by a defective thing in their custody or possession — but it is a negligence-based standard: the plaintiff must prove that the owner/custodian knew or should have known of the defect, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that the owner/custodian failed to exercise that care. This is different from the traditional American common law invitee standard (which also requires reasonable care), but it is grounded in the Civil Code's fault-based framework rather than the common law categorization of entrants. Louisiana Civil Code Art. 2322 addresses a narrower but potent category: the liability of the owner of a building for damage caused by the ruin of the building or by its defect in construction. Under Art. 2322, the building owner who knows or should have known of a defect in their building is strictly liable (or nearly so) for resulting damages — the doctrine that has generated significant litigation involving New Orleans's historic French Quarter buildings, including the iron-work balconies that project over Bourbon Street and that have been the subject of structural failure claims when overloaded by Mardi Gras parade crowds and bar-crawl patrons.

Need legal documents for your claim?

Medical release forms, demand letters, and more — state-specific.

LawDepot 150+ state-specific legal documents Free trial · From $33/mo

Create Document →

ULF

US Legal Forms State-specific legal forms From $14.95

Browse Forms →

Sponsored links. Affiliate disclosure · Compare all options