The Louisiana recreational use immunity statutes, La. R.S. 38:301(E)(1) and La. R.S. 9:2795(B)(1), provide immunity to levee districts and other political entities for personal injuries incurred on public lands, unless the injury was caused by a deliberate and wanton act, gross negligence, or a willful or malicious failure to warn against a dangerous condition.

In Chimento v. E. Jefferson Levee Dist., the MBLB team of Mark E. Hanna prevailed in the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that evidence of a failure to inspect for wet spots or algae growth on a recreational use path was insufficient to establish a willful or malicious failure to warn under the recreational use immunity statutes.

Background

On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff Corey Chimeno allegedly fell from his bicycle while cycling on the Lakefront All Weather Access Road (“AWAR”). Plaintiff contended that he fell because of a dangerous condition (in a puddle containing algae growth) on the AWAR. Plaintiff alleged that the East Jefferson Levee District (“EJLD”), and the Parish of Jefferson, willfully failed to warn against the allegedly dangerous condition. The trial court denied EJLD’s motion for summary judgment.

Holdings and Analysis

On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a written opinion granting EJLD’s writ application, reversing the trial court’s judgment, and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against EJLD with prejudice.

The Court considered the issue as “whether EJLD is immune from liability for plaintiff Corey Chimento’s personal injury claims based on the recreational use immunity provisions set forth in La. R.S. 38:301(E)(1) and La. R.S. 9:2795(B)(1).” The Court noted that Plaintiff did not present evidence to establish that anyone reported concerns to EJLD about the alleged wet spot at issue, and that the evidence presented was “insufficient to meet his burden to prove that EJLD consciously chose a course of action that revealed a willful or malicious failure to warn of an alleged dangerous condition on the access ramp next to the AWAR. Mr. Chimento does not have any evidence that EJLD or the Parish had actual knowledge of a slippery condition on the access ramp on the day of his accident.”

The Court further discussed with approval the policy considerations noted by MBLB, discussing that “[t]he purpose of these immunity statutes is to allow the public to access these areas for recreational use. In exchange for allowing access for recreational use, the immunity statutes shield political entities, such as EJLD and the Parish, from liability under the ordinary negligence standards. Further, willfulness cannot exist without purpose or design, and willful conduct cannot be inferred when the result may be reasonably attributed to negligence or inattention.”

Takeaways

As noted by the Court, the stated goal of the Recreational Use Statutes is to encourage owners of public land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering for such purposes. Absent gross negligence or willful or malicious failure to warn of a dangerous condition, public entities should not be liable for personal injuries that are incurred due to recreational use.

Chimento v. E. Jefferson Levee Dist., 25-13 (La. App. 5 Cir. 04/02/25); 2025 La. App. LEXIS 605