## Facts

- Jamie Michele Pinegar Springman and Bradley Harris had a four-year-old daughter, Brooklynn Grace Pinegar; the parents were never married and shared joint custody, with Pinegar as primary custodial parent and Harris exercising specified physical custody.
- On November 4, 2006, during Harris’s physical custody/visitation, Harris took Brooklynn to Michael Cascio’s home to watch a football game with Cascio and other adults.
- The living room where the adults planned to watch the game adjoined the kitchen/dining area through an open entranceway.
- After Brooklynn became hungry, Harris gave her a snack in the dining area and placed her on a dining chair positioned so she could watch cartoons on a small television located in that room.
- A glass bowl containing Cascio’s pet turtle sat on top of the television; the bowl was about four to five feet from the floor and was not reachable by Brooklynn while standing on the floor or sitting in the chair.
- Harris stepped a few feet away toward the living room, remaining close enough that he could see Brooklynn if he turned in her direction.
- About ten seconds later, Harris heard a crash, turned, and found Brooklynn on the floor with the shattered turtle bowl; she suffered facial cuts and was taken for emergency treatment.
- Pinegar, individually and on Brooklynn’s behalf, sued Harris and Cascio for negligence (including failure to supervise and unsafe premises). Pinegar later added Farmers Insurance Exchange as Cascio’s homeowner’s liability insurer.
- Cascio and Farmers moved for summary judgment, arguing Cascio had no duty to supervise Brooklynn and the condition did not present an unreasonable risk of harm.
- Harris filed a dilatory exception of prematurity based on La. R.S. 9:571; the trial court sustained it and dismissed the claims against Harris as premature. The trial court also granted summary judgment for Cascio and Farmers.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Cascio and Farmers on the ground that Cascio owed no duty to supervise Brooklynn and that the turtle bowl’s placement did not amount to an unreasonably dangerous condition, including under res ipsa loquitur or an “attractive nuisance” theory.
2. Whether the trial court erred by sustaining Harris’s dilatory exception of prematurity under La. R.S. 9:571, and whether Harris waived prematurity by failing to raise it in his earlier dilatory exception.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Cascio and Farmers, dismissing the claims against them.
- The court reversed the judgment sustaining Harris’s dilatory exception of prematurity and remanded for further proceedings against Harris.

## Legal Principles

- A social host does not automatically owe a duty to supervise a guest’s minor child when the child remains in the care and control of the visiting parent and the host has not taken on supervisory responsibility.
- Louisiana negligence and premises-liability claims require proof that the defendant owed a duty and that a condition created an unreasonable risk of harm; an ordinary household setup, without evidence of instability or defect and where the item is not readily accessible to the child, may be insufficient as a matter of law.
- Res ipsa loquitur applies only when the circumstances strongly indicate negligence by the defendant and the instrumentality causing harm was in the defendant’s exclusive control; it does not apply when another person (here, the parent present with the child) had substantial control over the circumstances leading to the accident.
- Louisiana does not treat “attractive nuisance” as a free-standing doctrine imposing strict or automatic liability; the analysis remains whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm under general negligence principles.
- Under La. C.C.P. art. 926, prematurity and lack of procedural capacity are dilatory exceptions; all dilatory objections must be raised together, or they are waived.
- Prematurity is evaluated based on facts existing when suit is filed; if the basis for prematurity was present from the start, a party generally cannot wait and assert it later through a separate dilatory exception.
- La. R.S. 9:571 is limited in scope; in this case, it did not bar the child’s tort claim against her father in the never-married, joint-custody setting presented, and the father’s prematurity objection was also procedurally waived.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana First Circuit held that Cascio and his insurer were entitled to summary judgment because Cascio, as a social host, did not assume a duty to supervise Brooklynn while her father was present and responsible for her, and the placement of the turtle bowl atop the television did not, on this record, establish an unreasonably dangerous condition or support res ipsa loquitur (or an “attractive nuisance” label). The court also reinstated the claims against Harris by reversing the prematurity dismissal, ruling that La. R.S. 9:571 did not render the suit premature on these facts and, in any event, Harris waived prematurity by not raising it in his earlier dilatory exception as required by La. C.C.P. art. 926.


Pinegar v. Harris, 20 So. 3d 1081 (2009)