Articles Posted in Litigation

Have you ever been in an accident where you were found at fault, but you know in your heart it wasn’t your fault? In this case, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the driver of the car, in which they were passengers,  was not at fault for the accident. The issue addressed by the Louisiana Court of Appeal in this case was the appropriate time for summary judgment.

A motion for summary judgment may only be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and it is used to avoid the cost of a full-scale trial. Johnson v. Evan Hall Sugar Co-op, Inc, 836 So.2d 484 (La. Ct. App. 2002). Moreover, a motion for summary judgment is properly granted only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the mover (i.e., the party moving for summary judgment) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).

In this case, Lachona Charles, Tranika Charles, and Qu’Von Charles (collectively “the Charles”) were passengers in Latrica Robinson’s (“Ms. Robinson”) car, when she entered the center lane of traffic through a gap between cars, colliding with John Guidry (“Mr. Guidry”). Mr. Guidry was making a delivery for Cintas Corporation (“Cintas”). The police were called, and Ms. Robinson was found to be at fault for failing to yield, although she was not issued a citation. See La. R.S. 32:123. The Charles family filed a lawsuit against Cintas for personal injuries sustained during the accident. Cintas moved for summary judgment providing that Ms. Robinson was at fault, regardless of whose version of events was accepted, because she failed to yield when entering the center lane. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Cintas submitted the deposition of the on-scene officer, excerpts from Mr. Guidry’s and Ms. Robinson’s depositions, and an aerial image of the intersection where the accident occurred. In response to the Cintas motion for summary judgment, the Charles family faxed their opposition memorandum, using essentially the same evidence Cintas used in their motion.

An automobile accident is not a lottery ticket. It is not an opportunity to take a negligent party to court and “sue their pants off” in an effort to win a hefty money judgment sufficient to pay for a bed-and-breakfast getaway in Natchitoches. But it should not leave the plaintiff in the lurch, either, without enough money to even cover medical bills. And sometimes, when you strive for one, you end up missing out on the other. One Louisiana couple learned the limits of revenue-generating potential for automobile accidents the hard way.

Eureka Ellis was driving up the onramp to the I-20 in East Monroe when she was sideswiped by Gregory Brown’s vehicle. Ellis also had her three children in the car with her. Brown apparently merged into Ellis’ lane prematurely. Brown did not deny he was at fault, but he asserted that the impact was minimal, reportedly asking after the collision if they even needed to call the police. The resultant “tap” of Brown’s vehicle left a few scratches on the driver’s side quarter panel of Ellis’ Charger; whether or not there was even a dent was a matter of dispute. When police arrived at the scene, none of the parties reported injuries, and no ticket was issued.

Despite the mild nature of the collision, 12 days later, Ellis and her children all went to see a chiropractor. This chiropractor, Dr. Holt, diagnosed them with neck and back pain. Over the course of the next three months, Dr. Holt saw Ms. Ellis and her three children twice a week, over 20 times each, billing them in excess of $15,000. The Ellises then filed a lawsuit against Brown and his insurer for general damages, special damages arising from the chiropractor visits, loss of consortium, and lost wages. Though the Trial Court denied a few of the claims, it determined that some damages were in order, and awarded the Ellis family a grand total of $7,692.50. This figure was far below their total claim requested and barely half of what they owed the chiropractor. 

Trials are an economic drain on society. Though they serve an important role in our society, they are costly and time-consuming. As a result, courts cannot take every case to trial, and the judicial system must be selective. Thus, sometimes a court makes a judgment without a trial because there would be no purpose for a trial. These judgments are called summary judgments. Below is a case in which the Trial Court granted summary judgment because one of the parties did not even have a valid legal claim.

In 2002, Kimberly Moe incurred injuries from a car accident in the Orleans Parish of Louisiana. She hired Allen Borne, Jr. to be her attorney. After four months, however, Ms. Moe decided to hire a different attorney, Darryl Carimi. Mr. Carimi filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver at fault, Frank Bastian, and his insurer, Allstate. But Mr. Borne, despite no longer being Ms. Moe’s lawyer, asked Allstate to put his name on any settlement checks that were to be issued. While the litigation was ongoing, Ms. Moe died. Upon her death, her surviving spouse filed a wrongful death claim, but eventually settled with Mr. Bastian and Allstate. The settlement check did not have Mr. Borne’s name. In fact, though Mr. Borne had filed a claim against Allstate in order to receive some portion of the settlement, Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted Allstate’s motion.

For an appellate court to consider whether a trial court properly granted a motion for summary judgment, the court must determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Citron v. Gentilly Carnival Club, Inc., 165 So.3d 304, 313 (La. Ct. App. 2015); La. C.C.P. art. 966 A(3). A party wishing to defeat a motion for summary judgment must show that there are sufficient facts the party can show at trial to support its claim. La. C.C.P. art. 966 C(2).