There has been much discussion regarding the Louisiana State Legislature’s recent enactment of HB 431, when it will go into effect, and its future impact on litigation throughout the state. While seemingly innocuous, the legislature passed this bill amending Louisiana’s comparative fault Civil Code article, La. C.C. Art. 2323, with the intent to curb frivolous litigation and provide defendants with ammunition against plaintiffs with questionable claims.
Beginning January 1, 2026, La. C.C. Art. 2323(A)(2)(a) will mandate:
(2) If a person suffers injury, death, or loss partly as the result of his own negligence and partly as a result of the fault of another person or persons, then the following shall apply:
(a) If the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the person suffering injury, death, or loss is equal to or greater than fifty-one percent, then the person suffering injury, death, or loss shall not be entitled to recover damages.
This change to Louisiana’s comparative fault regime, which previously only required reduction in a plaintiff’s recovery proportional to the fault they were assigned by the jury, completely precludes recovery should they be found more than half at fault for the incident. In theory, this change will discourage lawyers from taking on cases in which liability is more of a toss-up given the increased risk of being left with nothing but a financial loss at trial.
For example, in a car accident where both drivers ran a stop sign at an intersection and got into an accident, but only one filed suit; the defendant driver would have more leverage to argue that other actions by the plaintiff driver, such as speeding, made them ever so slightly more at fault – completely negating the plaintiff’s recovery. Similar arguments would also have more weight during settlement negotiations, leading to lower settlement amounts and increasing plaintiffs’ willingness to enter into early resolutions of disputes.
However, critics of this change could potentially argue that HB 431 doesn’t go far enough to have the sort of impact which was intended. Any defense attorney has numerous stories of ending up in the same situation as just described – a suit of questionable liability in which untold time and expense have been invested defending and ultimately settling a case which should never have been brought in the first place.
An inconvenient truth is that many lawyers and litigants are not dissuaded from pursuing cases with questionable liability and enter into cases with the intent of obtaining modest settlements due to the costs and unpredictability of defending such a case through trial. Such critics would likely suggest that penalties need to be assessed to such lawyers and plaintiffs along with a bar from recovery for any change to have a meaningful impact.
Takeaway
Overall, HB 431 is part of Louisiana’s latest push to curb the excess of litigation and attract insurers and other business interests to the state. Should litigation become less of a daunting barrier for businesses, Governor Landry and his administration hope that insurance premiums and related costs will go down, helping the state and its economy thrive. Whether HB 431 will have any significant impact remains to be seen, but nevertheless it is another step towards reducing the excess litigation which many cite as reasons for avoiding doing business in Louisiana.
The post Pros and Cons of HB 431: A Bar to Recovery for Questionable Plaintiffs appeared first on MBLB.