Daigrepont v. Exxon Mobile Corp.
| Decision Date | 22 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2021 CA 0536, 2021 CA 0537 |
| Citation | 339 So.3d 1203 |
| Parties | Derrick DAIGREPONT v. EXXON MOBILE CORPORATION, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Turner Industries Group, LLC, Turner Industrial Maintenance, LLC, and Flowserve US, Inc. Rodney Wanner v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Global Services Company, ExxonMobil Chemical Company, ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company, Brock Industrial Services LLC, Total Safety U.S., Inc., United Rentals (North America), Inc., Flowserve US, Inc. and Jonathon Zachary |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
339 So.3d 1203
Derrick DAIGREPONT
v.
EXXON MOBILE CORPORATION, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, Turner Industries Group, LLC, Turner Industrial Maintenance, LLC, and Flowserve US, Inc.
Rodney Wanner
v.
Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Global Services Company, ExxonMobil Chemical Company, ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company, Brock Industrial Services LLC, Total Safety U.S., Inc., United Rentals (North America), Inc., Flowserve US, Inc. and Jonathon Zachary
2021 CA 0536, 2021 CA 0537
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 22, 2021
Darrel J. Papillion, Renee C. Crasto, Jennifer W. Moroux, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Derrick Daigrepont
J. Kyle Findley, Kala Sellers, Houston, Texas, Antonio M. "Tony" Clayton, Richard J. Ward, III, Michael P. Fruge, Port Allen, Louisiana, Thomas More Flanagan, Sean P. Brady, Anders F. Holmgren, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Rodney Wanner
Michael P. Bienvenu, Brent E. Kinchen, Valerie Briggs Bargas, Gregory P. Aycock, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant, Appellee Flowserve US, Inc.
Arthur H. Leith, C. Kieffer Petree, Sarah E. McMillan, Dan E. West, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Thomas W. Darling, Laura W. Christensen, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Setpoint Integrated Solutions, Inc.
Charles M. Jarrell, Opelousas, Louisiana, Counsel for Intervenor-Appellee Indemnity Insurance Company of North America
BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.
CHUTZ, J.
Plaintiff-appellant, Rodney Wanner, appeals the trial court's judgment, granting summary judgment and dismissing his claims against plug valve distributor/seller, defendant-appellee Setpoint Integrated Solutions, Inc. (Setpoint),1 for damages for personal injuries arising from an explosion at a refinery and chemical plant. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 22, 2016, an explosion occurred in the chemical plant of the Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) facility located in Baton Rouge.2 Wanner, an employee of Turner Industries, LLC, was working in the alkylation unit (Alky Unit) on scaffolding erected directly above various valves, which were in active operation processing isobutane. ExxonMobil employee, Jonathan Zachary, had been instructed to work on a compressor in the Alky Unit, changing out the motor and a check valve during post-turnaround maintenance. In conjunction with the compressor motor replacement, Zachary had to turn a plug valve (the subject plug valve) to fill the line. When he turned the handwheel of the subject plug valve, the handle free spun. Since he had encountered free-spinning handwheels before, Zachary realized that he had to remove the gearbox of the valve to properly operate the subject plug valve. Unaware that the design of the subject plug valve was different from other plug valves that he had previously worked on, Zachary took off the support bracket, as he had done with other plug valves. In so doing, he removed four bolts that secured the top cap of the subject plug valve. Zachary then placed a wrench on the subject plug valve stem and turned the subject plug valve to the open position. The subject plug valve fell apart and approximately 2,000 pounds of pressurized isobutane was released. A nearby welding machine
ignited the isobutane causing the explosion and seriously injuring Wanner. Three other workers in the vicinity were injured as well.
Wanner subsequently filed this lawsuit, naming numerous defendants, including Setpoint, ExxonMobil, Zachary, and Flowserve US, Inc. (Flowserve), the manufacturer of the subject plug valve,3 asserting various claims against each.4 Insofar as his claims against Setpoint, Wanner maintained that the subject plug valve was unreasonably dangerous because of an inadequate warning. Setpoint answered the petition, generally denying Wanner's claims against it. Subsequently, Setpoint filed a motion for summary judgment, averring it was not liable to Wanner and seeking dismissal from the lawsuit. After a hearing, the trial court granted Setpoint's motion and, in a judgment signed on October 18, 2019, dismissed Setpoint from Wanner's lawsuit. This appeal followed.
VIABILITY OF THE APPEAL
During the pendency of this appeal, Setpoint filed a motion to dismiss, averring that Wanner's devolutive appeal was untimely. The record shows that notice of the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of Setpoint was mailed on December 13, 2019, and that the trial court granted Wanner's appeal on December 18, 2019, prior to the expiration of the new trial delays. See La. C.C.P. art. 1974 ("A party may file a motion for a new trial not later than seven days, exclusive of legal holidays, after the clerk has mailed ... the notice of judgment."). Setpoint maintains that the time delay for Wanner to have filed a new trial expired on December 26, 2019.5
According to La. C.C.P. art. 2087 :
Except as otherwise provided in this Article or by other law, an appeal which does not suspend the effect or the execution of an appealable ... judgment may be taken within sixty days of any of the following.
(1) The expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial ... as provided by Article 1974 ... if no application has been filed timely.
Relying on Article 2087, Setpoint asserts that the 60-day time delay for Wanner to file his devolutive appeal began to run on December 27, 2019 and ended 60 days later on February 24, 2019. According to Setpoint, "Wanner undeniably failed to file his devolutive appeal within these [60] days." Because Wanner filed his devolutive appeal before the 60-day time period began to run, Setpoint contends that it is untimely.
The immediate effect of perfecting an appeal from a final judgment is to prevent the judgment from acquiring the authority of the thing adjudged. This is because if a final judgment acquires the authority of the thing adjudged, no court has the jurisdictional power and authority to modify or revise that judgment. See Frank L. Maraist, 1 La. Civ. Law Treatise, Civil Procedure, § 14:6 (2d ed.); see also Lay v. Stalder , 99-0402(La. App. 1st Cir. 3/31/00), 757 So.2d 916, 919 (failure of appellant to timely file a devolutive appeal
from a final judgment results in the judgment acquiring the authority of the thing adjudged, and the court of appeal has no jurisdiction to alter that judgment). In light of the purpose of an appeal, it is evident that Article 2087 establishes the outer time limit in which a devolutive appeal may be taken to avoid a jurisdictional defect and preclude a court from reviewing the propriety of a final judgment. Here, Wanner filed his appeal on the fifth day after rendition of the trial court's final judgment, well within 60 plus seven days, exclusive of legal holidays, after the clerk mailed the notice of judgment. Thus, it was filed within the outer limit for taking an appeal under Article 2087.
Additionally, we are aware of jurisprudence holding that when an order of appeal is granted prior to rendition of a final judgment, once the final judgment is signed, any previously existing defect is cured, and there is no useful purpose in dismissing the otherwise valid appeal. See Overmier v. Traylor , 475 So.2d 1094, 1094-95 (La. 1985). By analogy it follows that once the delays elapsed with no party having filed a motion for new trial, any previously existing defect was cured, and there is no useful purpose in dismissing the otherwise valid appeal. Therefore, once seven days, exclusive of legal holidays, after the clerk mailed the notice of judgment lapsed and no motion for new trial had been filed, the previously existing defect was cured. Thus, no useful purpose is served by dismissing Warmer's valid appeal.
Given that appeals are favored in the law, see Edgefield v. Audubon Nature Institute, Inc., 2018-1782 (La. 1/18/19), 261 So.3d 776 (per curiam), for the forgoing reasons, we maintain Wanner's appeal. Accordingly, Setpoint's motion to dismiss is denied.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full-scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations, LLC v. City of Baton Rouge, 2017-1553 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/18/18), 255 So.3d 16, 21, writ denied. 2018-1397 (La. 12/3/18), 257 So.3d 194. The Code of Civil Procedure places the burden of proof on the party filing a motion for summary judgment. See La. C.C.P. art. 966D(1). The mover can meet its burden by filing supporting documentary evidence consisting of pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, certified medical records, written stipulations, and admissions with its motion for summary judgment. La. C.C.P. art. 966A(4).
Once the mover properly establishes by its supporting documents that there are no genuine issue of material facts, the mover does not have to negate all of the essential elements of the adverse party's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Zanders
...in favor of the State was warranted.CONCLUSIONFor the above and foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's ruling granting 339 So.3d 1203 summary judgment in favor of State of Louisiana, Division of Administration, Office of Community Development, Disaster Recovery Unit and rendering......