Champagne v. American Southern Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 54186,54186 |
| Citation | 295 So.2d 437 |
| Parties | Easton CHAMPAGNE, Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Bartholomew Champagne v. AMERICAN SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY and Adler V. Ledoux. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Robert Brinkman, James T. Guglielmo, Edward B. Dubuisson, Dubuisson, Brinkhaus, Guglielmo & Dauzat, Opelousas, for defendants-relators.
Christopher Zaunbrecher, Div. of Administration & Planning, La. Health & Social & Rehabilitation Services Administration, for third-party defendant-respondent.
Alex L. Andrus, III, Andrus & Andrus, Opelousas, for plaintiffs-respondents.
The question to be decident in this case is whether a jury trial demand by a principal defendant can be defeated by the plaintiff subsequently amending his petition to add the State as a defendant.
This is an action for damages resulting from the death of Dolores Champagne which occurred on January 12, 1972. At the time of the accident, Dolores Champagne was being transported from Lafayette Charity Hospital in Lafayette, to Opelousas in St. Landry Parish by means of an automobile owned by the St. Landry Parish Sheriff's Department, and was accompanied in the automobile by two deputies of that department. At some point in the journey she jumped out of the car and sustained serious injuries from which she died. Shortly after her death, her only surviving child, Joseph Bartholomew Champagne, died, and his estate was opened with the appointment of Easton Champagne as administrator.
Easton Champagne initially filed suit against Adler Ledoux, and American Southern Insurance Company alleging that the negligence of the two deputies, Allen Thomas and Leo Prejean, was the sole and proximate cause of the accident. An answer was filed by American Southern requesting a jury trial on the issue of liability. The plaintiff answered this demand by filing another pleading requesting jury trial on all issues. The insurance company then filed a third party petition naming the State of Louisiana through the State Department of Hospitals as a third party defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff amended his petition to name the State of Louisiana as an additional defendant. The State then filed a motion to strike defendant's third party demand and to strike the demand for a jury trial. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that all motions for a jury trial, by any party, would be denied based on our decision in Jobe v. Hodge, 253 La. 483, 218 So.2d 566 (1969), where we held there could be no jury trial as to any party when the State is a principal defendant.
Jobe was a result of a conflict between decisions of the First Circuit and those of the Second and Third Circuits on the question of whether a jury trial could be had in a case in which a public body is a party to the principal demand. The First Circuit in Abercrombie v. Gilfoil, 205 So.2d 461 (La.App.1st Cir. 1967) had ruled there could be no jury trial as to any issue in which the State was one of several defendants. The Second Circuit in Jobe v. Hodge, 207 So.2d 912 (La.App.2d Cir. 1968) and the Third Circuit in Watson v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 214 So.2d 395 (La.App.3d Cir. 1968) had ruled that in the same trial the judge would decide all questions relating to the public body, while the jury would decide all questions relating to the other defendants.
The court in Jobe adopted the reasoning of the First Circuit and held there could be no jury trial as to any issues where a public body was one of several defendants. The court noted that although C.C.P. Art. 1735 provided certain issues could be tried by a jury, it also provided there could be only one trial. It also distinguished the Louisiana article from the Federal Rules on which it was based, by noting that the federal system provided for separate trials of any separate issue under Rule 42(b), and thus could avoid different decisions on the same point. Louisiana has no such provision.
The effect of Jobe was modified by our decision in Talley v. Friedman, 255 La. 735, 232 So.2d 495 (1970). In that case, the public body was a third party not a principal defendant. We recognized the right of the State not to have any claim against it tried by jury, and attempted to reconcile that right with the right of the plaintiff to have a trial by jury. We concluded we could give effect to both rights by ordering separate trials of the principal and incidental demands, that the result would be the same as if the defendant had filed a separate suit against the State for contribution. The rationale behind Talley was the authority in C.C.P. Art. 1038 for ordering separate trials of principal and incidental demands, and Arts. 1734 and 1735 with their provisions for jury trial as to certain issues.
In the instant case, the State was brought in as a third party by the original defendant, after a jury trial had been requested. The State was then made a principal defendant by the plaintiff. At this point, the motion to strike the demand for a jury trial was filed and granted. We granted writs in this case under our supervisory jurisdiction to reconsider our decision in Jobe v. Hodge, supra, and to re-examine the question of whether a jury trial request can be defeated by joining the State as a principal party. 285 So.2d 543 (La.1973).
The statutory law is as follows:
'Art. 1731. Issues triable by jury
Except as limited by Article 1733, the right of trial by jury is recognized.
The nature and amount of the principal demand shall determine whether any issue in the principal or incidental demand is triable by jury.
'Art. 1733. Limitation upon jury trials
A trial by jury shall not be available in:
(5) All cases where a jury trial is specifically denied by law.
'Art. 1735. Trial of less than all issues; stipulation
The trial of all issues for which jury trial has been requested shall be by jury unless the parties stipulate that the jury trial shall be as to certain issues only, or unless the right to trial by jury as to certain issues does not exist, but in all cases there shall be but one trial.
'R.S. 13:5104. Jury trial prohibited
No suit against the state or other public body shall be tried by jury. Acts 1960, No. 27, § 4.'
It is to be noted that C.C.P. Art. 1731 expressly recognizes the right to jury trial except as limited by the provisions of C.C.P. Art. 1733. The official...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
97-1542 La.App. 3 Cir. 3/10/99, Edwards v. Daugherty
...630 So.2d at 966; See also, Dean v. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury, 510 So.2d 82 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987), citing Champagne v. American Southern Ins. Co., 295 So.2d 437 (La.1974); Randolph v. General Motors Corp., 93-1983 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/10/94), 646 So.2d 1019, writ denied, 95-194 (La.3/17/95......
-
Edwards v. Daugherty
...630 So.2d at 966; See also, Dean v. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury, 510 So.2d 82 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987), citing Champagne v. American Southern Ins. Co., 295 So.2d 437 (La.1974); Randolph v. General Motors Corp., 93-1983 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/10/94), 646 So.2d 1019, writ denied, 95-194 (La.3/17/95......
-
Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co. Inc
...in the absence of specific authority for its denial.” Brewton, supra, 02-2852 at p. 4, 848 So.2d at 589 (citing Champagne v. American S. Ins. Co., 295 So.2d 437 (La.1974)). See also Maraist and Lemmon, 1 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, supra, at § 11:2 Jury Trials. “The right to a jury trial ......
-
Miller v. Chicago Ins. Co.
...'The judge already has the power to set aside a jury decision with which he is not in accord . . .' Champagne v. American Southern Insurance Company, 295 So.2d 437 (La.1974).' (306 So.2d 355, at We agree with the reasoning of the Third Circuit and therefore hold that, on appeal, review shou......