Jeansonne v. Willie

• Decision Date: 06 June 1966
• Docket Number: No. 2242,2242
• Citation: 188 So.2d 170
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: Milbon J. JEANSONNE v. Ray B. WILLIE et al.

Page 170

188 So.2d 170

Milbon J. JEANSONNE v. Ray B. WILLIE et al.

No. 2242.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 6, 1966.

Rehearing Denied July 5, 1966.

Reuter, Reuter & Schott, Patrick M. Schott, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Christovich & Kearney, A. R. Christovich, Jr., Porteous & Johnson, Lloyd C. Melancon, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

J. Thomas Nelson, New Orleans, for Ray B. Willie, defendant-appellee.

Albert J. Huddleston, New Orleans, for U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co ., intervenor.

Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevant, Carrere & Denegre, I. G. Kiefer, New Orleans, for Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., intervenor.

Before McBRIDE, CHASEZ and SAMUEL, JJ.

McBRIDE, Judge.

Plaintiff, claiming to have been injured in an automobile accident which occurred early in the morning on September 4, 1963 at or near the south draw of Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, brought this suit for $250,000 damages against four alleged joint tort-feasors and the insurer of one of said defendants, all in solido; two intervenors joined with plaintiff, one seeking reimbursement of workmen's compensation paid plaintiff as the result of his injuries; the other intervenor was the insurer who sought recovery of the damages sustained by plaintiff's automobile, which it paid plaintiff under its policy. One defendant was released from the suit on a summary judgment which is now final and that defendant is not a party to the case. In due course the matter proceeded to trial as to plaintiff, the three remaining defendants, and the intervenors, and 'by stipulation among the parties, only the question of liability was presented to the Court.'

The judgment decreed:

'* * * that there be judgment herein in favor of plaintiff, MILBON J. JEANSONNE, and against defendant, RAY B. WILLIE, In such amount as may be determined by further proceedings; that there be judgment herein in favor of defendants, PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, GENE GERMANY and AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and against plaintiff, MILBON J. JEANSONNE, dismissing the suit against them.

'* * * that there be like judgment rendered herein as to the intervention of UNITED STATES FIDELITY and GUARANTY CO., the collision insurance carrier of plaintiff, Milbon J. Jeansonne, and further as to the intervention of LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, for payments of Workmen's Compensation made to plaintiff, Milbon J. Jeansonne.

'The California Company was previously dismissed from this suit by judgment dated January 20, 1965.

'Taxation of costs to await final decision herein.' (Italics ours .)

The plaintiff and the intervenors appealed from that portion of the judgment dismissing their respective claims against three of the defendants.

This case portrays a classic example of the piecemeal trial leaving other issues to await a future trial or trials. Louisiana courts do not sanction partial trials and fragmentary adjudications of lawsuits. In an official comment found beneath C.C.P. art. 1915 it is stated: 'The rule that there should be one final judgment is designed to prevent multiplicity of appeals and piecemeal litigation .'

We find the following expressions on the subject-matter made by various courts: 'the law does not favor bringing up cases by piecemeal'; 'it is well settled in our jurisprudence that the law does not favor a multiplicity of suits and frowns upon the trial of cases in piecemeal'; 'if this be not so, there may be, in any given case, as many appeals as there are issues presented'; 'the above article makes it certain that it is not the policy of the law to permit a lawsuit to reach the appellate court in fragments or piecemeal', 'under our procedure and jurisprudence, trial of all matters pertaining to the existence of liability on the part of defendant is held on the merits, rather than piecemeal'; 'the trial of cases in piecemeal is not favored'. Loew's v. Don George, Inc., 227 La. 127, 78 So.2d 534; Succession of Dancie, 187 La. 628, 175 So . 418; Bossier's Heirs v. Hollingsworth & Jackson, 117 La. 221, 41 So. 553; Blackburn v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co., La.App., 115 So.2d 65; Leteff v. Maryland Casualty Co., La.App., 82 So.2d 80 (Cert. Den .), and General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. McCarthy, La.App., 50 So.2d 520.

In Beckham v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, La.App., 137 So.2d 99, which is strikingly similar to the instant case, our brothers of the Third Circuit had before them a summary judgment in plaintiff's favor On the issue of liability alone. In discussing such unsatisfactory procedure and the appealability of the judgment, the court stated:

'Applying the above principle of law to the instant case, it is apparent that our legislature and the redactors of our Code of Civil Procedure intentionally omitted, as unnecessary in Louisiana, any provision for summary judgment on the issue of liability alone. Furthermore, any construction permitting summary judgment on the issue of liability alone, under the general provisions of LSA-C.C.P. Art. 966 that summary judgments may be rendered 'for all or part of the relief for which he has prayed' would...