Background
The Lathan Company pursued negligence claims against Jacobs Project Management Co./CSRS Consortium in consolidated litigation involving the Louisiana Department of Education and the Recovery School District. The limited writ disposition does not detail the underlying construction project or the specific negligent acts alleged.
Jacobs moved for summary judgment, arguing that the parties’ contracts did not assign it a duty to protect Lathan from the particular harm alleged. On March 5, 2026, the 19th Judicial District Court denied the motion, and Jacobs sought supervisory review.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana First Circuit granted the writ and reversed the portion of the district court’s judgment denying Jacobs’s motion for summary judgment. Following de novo review, the court found no genuine issue of material fact and concluded that the contracts did not impose on Jacobs a duty to protect Lathan from the specific negligence alleged.
The court explained that Jacobs could not be liable for failing to perform duties contractually allocated to other parties or duties the contracts prohibited Jacobs from performing, citing Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects. It granted Jacobs’s motion and dismissed Lathan’s remaining claims against Jacobs.
Key Takeaways
- A project participant’s negligence exposure depends on the duties assigned by the governing contracts.
- A defendant cannot be held liable for failing to perform duties allocated to others or contractually placed beyond its authority.
- The court resolved the duty issue on summary judgment because no genuine issue of material fact remained.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the importance of contractual allocation of responsibilities in Louisiana construction-related negligence cases. A plaintiff cannot impose duties on a project manager that the contracts assign elsewhere or expressly prohibit the manager from undertaking.
The ruling also shows that contractual-duty questions may support summary judgment when the contract documents and record leave no material factual dispute.