The opinion
PETTIGREW,
1, concurring.
11The majority recognizes, and I agree, that a claim for negligent infliction of genuine and serious emotional distress is a viable claim in Louisiana. Barrino v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 96-1824 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97) , 697 So.2d 27, 33 . The majority then relieves the Sheriffs Office of liability by finding that the Sheriffs Office has no special duty to preserve evidence obtained during the investigation of a particular crime for the benefit of the victim of the crime. I disagree with this legal premise based on the general duties of the Sheriffs Office pursuant to La. R.S. 33:1435 and La. Civ.Code art. 2315 and the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses’ Act, pursuant to La. R.S. 46:1841 et seq., as amended. In particular, La. R.S. 46:1844(1) provides that “[t]he victim shall be protected at all times by all rules and laws governing the criminal procedure and the admissibility of evidence applicable to criminal proceedings.” Moreover, La. R.S. 46:1844(L) provides that “[a]ll judicial and law enforcement agencies shall expeditiously return any stolen or other personal property to victims or victims’ families when no longer needed as evidence.”
Ultimately, I am of the opinion there is a legal duty to preserve evidence obtained during the investigation of a particular crime, not only for the benefit of the general public, but also the victim of the crime.
However, I still concur in the result reached by the majority because I am of the opinion the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proof to prove serious emotional distress caused by the destruction of the evidence as required in Barrino.