Hamway v. Braud
| Decision Date | 08 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2001 CA 2364.,2001 CA 2364. |
| Citation | 838 So.2d 803 |
| Parties | William HAMWAY d/b/a Interstate Transmission v. Ronnie BRAUD d/b/a Braud's Towing Service. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Paul R. Matzen, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant William Hamway d/b/a Interstate Transmission.
Larry A. Babin, Jr., Gonzales, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Ronnie Braud d/b/a Braud's Towing Service.
Before: FITZSIMMONS, GUIDRY, and PETTIGREW, JJ.
Plaintiff, William Hamway d/h/a Interstate Transmission (Hamway), appeals the trial court's granting of defendant's, Ronnie Braud d/b/a Braud's Towing Service (Braud), peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Hamway, operator of a transmission shop, entered into a contract with Dave Jackson, Sr. to remove a transmission from Mr. Jackson's vehicle, a corvette. However, a dispute arose between Hamway and Mr. Jackson, whereupon Mr. Jackson contacted Braud to tow the vehicle to another location. During the relocation of the vehicle in August of 1999, the interior upholstery was damaged when Hamway's employees placed transmission parts inside the vehicle.
Mr. Jackson ultimately brought suit against Hamway in Baton Rouge City Court, Small Claims Division. Braud, however, was not made a party. On March 14, 2000, judgment was rendered against Hamway in the amount of $1,632.23, plus legal interest and court costs. Thereafter, in a petition filed July 28, 2000, Hamway sought indemnification, or in the alternative, contribution from Braud. In his petition, Hamway claimed that Braud caused the damages assessed against him because he prohibited Hamway's employees from placing the transmission parts on the tow truck and instructed them to place the parts inside the vehicle. On December 26, 2000, Braud filed a Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action. A hearing on the exception was held on February 28, 2001, and in a judgment signed on April 16, 2001, the trial court granted Braud's exception and ordered that Hamway's petition be dismissed with prejudice.
Hamway now appeals from this decision and asserts as his sole assignment of error that the trial judge erred in granting the defendant's peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, thereby denying Hamway's right of indemnity or contribution.
A court of appeal reviews de novo a lower court's ruling sustaining the exception of no cause of action because the exception raises a question of law based on the sufficiency of the petition. City of New Orleans Board of Directors of Louisiana State Museum, 98-1170, pp. 9-10 (La.3/2/99), 739 So.2d 748, 756. The peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action is designed to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether plaintiff is afforded a remedy in law, based on the facts alleged in the pleadings. Sinclair v. State, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 99-2290, p. 4 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/3/00), 769 So.2d 1270, 1272, writ denied, 00-3331 (La.1/25/02), 806 So.2d 665, cert denied, 536 U.S. 910, 122 S.Ct. 2369, 153 L.Ed.2d 189 (2002). For purposes of ruling on the exception, all well-pleaded allegations of fact in the petition must be accepted as true. Guzzardo-Knight v. Central Progressive Bank, 99-1449, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/23/00), 762 So.2d 1243, 1246, writ denied, 00-2298 (La.6/15/01), 793 So.2d 208. No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the objection that the petition fails to state a cause of action. La. C.C.P. art. 931. A court should sustain an exception only if the law affords no remedy under any evidence that is admissible under the pleadings. Sinclair, 99-2290 at 4, 769 So.2d at 1272.
Indemnity, which is based in the concept of unjust enrichment, may lie when one party discharges a liability, which another rightfully should have assumed. Nassif v. Sunrise Homes, Inc., 98-3193, pp. 2-3 (La.6/29/99), 739 So.2d 183, 185; Mayo v. Benson Chevrolet Co., 97-1121, p. 2 (La.App. 5th Cir.8/25/98), 717 So.2d 1247, 1248. The obligation to indemnify may be express, as in a contractual provision, or may be implied in law, under a tort or quasi-contract theory, even in the absence of an indemnity agreement. Bienville Parish Police Jury v. United States Postal Service, 8 F.Supp.2d 563, 569 (W.D.La.4/29/98); Nassif, 98-3193 at 3, 739 So.2d at 185. An implied contract of indemnity, or tort indemnity as it applies in this case, arises only when the fault of the person seeking indemnification is solely constructive or derivative, from failure or omission to perform some legal duty, and may only be had against one who, because of his act, has caused such constructive liability to be imposed. Nassif, 98-3193 at 3, 739 So.2d at 185; see also Mayo, 97-1121 at 2, 717 So.2d at 1248. As such, a party who is actually negligent or actually at fault cannot recover tort indemnity. Sellers v. Seligman, 463 So.2d 697, 700 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 464 So.2d 1379 (La.1985).
In the instant case, Hamway asserts in his petition that Braud directed Hamway's employees to place the transmission parts inside Mr. Jackson's vehicle. However, the facts as alleged admit that Hamway's employees actually placed the transmission parts inside the car. Additionally, the petition acknowledges that judgment was rendered against Hamway, thereby finding him to be at fault for the resulting damage, in the amount of $1,632.23. These facts, as alleged, do not show the mere constructive or derivative fault of Hamway but rather, show that Hamway was actively negligent and was found to be actively at fault.1 As such, we find that Hamway has not stated a cause of action against Braud for indemnity.
The substantive basis for the right to claim contribution is subrogation to the plaintiff's rights against the remaining tortfeasors. La. C.C. arts. 1804 and 1805; Dennis v. The Finish Line, Inc., 99-1413, p. 41 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/22/00), 781 So.2d 12, 44, writ denied, 01-0214 (La.3/16/01), 787 So.2d 319. Contribution permits a tortfeasor who has paid more than his share of a solidary obligation to seek reimbursement from the other tortfeasors for their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Safeway, Inc. v. Rooter 2000 Plumbing & Drain SSS
...v. Lee, 784 N.E.2d 566, 575–76 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) ; Med James, Inc. v. Barnes, 31 Kan.App.2d 89, 61 P.3d 86 (2003) ; Hamway v. Braud, 838 So.2d 803, 806–07 (La.Ct.App.2002) ; Carr v. Home Ins. Co., 250 Va. 427, 463 S.E.2d 457, 458 ...
-
425 Notre Dame, LLC v. Kolbe & Kolbe Mill Work Co.
...other tortfeasors for their respective shares of the judgment, which shares are proportionate to the fault of each.” Hamway v. Braud , 838 So.2d 803, 807 (La.Ct.App.2002) (emphasis in original). Following the 1996 amendments to article 2324, solidary liability arises only if tortfeasors con......
-
Kelvin Manbodh Asbestos Litig. Series Kelvin Manbodh v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.
...Bureau, Inc. v. Lee, 784 N.E.2d 566 (Ind.Ct.App.2003); Med James, Inc. v. Barnes, 61 P.3d 86 (Kan.Ct.App.2003); Hamway v. Braud, 838 So.2d 803 (La.Ct.App.2002); Carr v. Home Ins. Co., 463 S.E.2d 457 (Va.1995). Those jurisdictions which still allow for indemnity where plaintiff is negligent,......
-
Wooley v. Lucksinger
...it is immaterial, irrelevant, and insufficient should be denied. (Footnotes deleted. Emphasis added.) See also Hamway v. Braud, 2001-2364 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/02), 838 So.2d 803. The liability for damages of negligent co-obligors is joint and divisible. Pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2324 B, suc......
-
Chapter 6
...578 (Wis. App. 2007). [52] See, e.g., La. Rev. Stat. Ann., Art. 1804 (contribution among joint tortfeasors). See also: Hamway v. Braud, 838 So.2d 803, 806 (La. App. 2002) (indemnity may arise under a tort theory); Farbe v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, 765 So.2d 994, 996 (La. 2000) (source ......
-
CHAPTER 7 Comprehensive General Liability Exclusions for Coverage A
...578 (Wis. App. 2007). [52] See, e.g., La. Rev. Stat. Ann., Art. 1804 (contribution among joint tortfeasors). See also: Hamway v. Braud, 838 So.2d 803, 806 (La. App. 2002) (indemnity may arise under a tort theory); Farbe v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, 765 So.2d 994, 996 (La. 2000) (source ......