Martin v. Thomas

Decision Date29 June 2022
Docket Number2021-C-01490
Citation346 So.3d 238
Parties Reginald MARTIN v. Rodney THOMAS, Greer Logging, LLC and National Liability and Fire Insurance Company
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Joseph Andrea Gregorio, Bossier City, Justin Cole Sartin, Shreveport, for Applicant - Plaintiff.

D. Brennan Hussey, Hunter Scott Crawford, Shreveport, for Respondent - Defendant.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. SEE OPINION.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Genovese, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Justice Crichton and Justice Crain.

Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

Griffin, J., additionally concurs for the reasons assigned by Justice Crichton and Justice Crain.

Hughes, J.

At issue in this motion for partial summary judgment is whether a plaintiff may pursue both a negligence cause of action against an employee for which the employer is vicariously liable and a direct claim against the employer for its own negligence in hiring, supervision, training, and retention as well as a negligent entrustment claim, when the employer stipulates that the employee was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the injury. We hold that a plaintiff can maintain both claims even if the employer has stipulated to the course and scope of employment. We therefore reverse the partial summary judgment in favor of the employer which dismissed the claims asserted directly against it, and remand to the district court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Reginald Martin named truck driver Rodney Thomas, his employer Greer Logging, LLC, and its insurer National Liability and Fire Insurance Company as defendants in this personal injury case. The plaintiff alleges that he and defendant Thomas were involved in a collision on South Purdue Street in Vivian, Louisiana at 8:27 p.m. on December 17, 2016. The plaintiff was driving a 2004 Honda Accord. Defendant Thomas was operating a 2016 Peterbilt tractor truck owned by Greer Logging. The plaintiff alleges Thomas was backing into a driveway.

The plaintiff alleges that following the accident he suffered from several injuries including head/facial contusions, multiple broken ribs

, a fractured sternum, an open fracture of the tibial plateau, an open comminuted fracture of his left patella, and open wounds of the left leg, knee, and ankle. He also alleges mental anguish and distress in his petition.

The plaintiff's initial petition, filed April 4, 2017, alleged only negligence on the part of driver Thomas. In their answer, the defendants admitted that Thomas was at all pertinent times in the course and scope of his employment with Greer Logging, LLC.

The plaintiff filed a supplemental and amending petition on July 16, 2020. The amended petition added causes of action against Greer Logging for negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention as well as a negligent entrustment claim (hereinafter "direct negligence claims"). Specifically, the plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of employer Greer Logging for its failure to do a thorough background check on Thomas; to check employment and personal references; to check employment history and attempt to speak with former supervisors; to check driving records and history prior to hiring him; to establish and enforce proper employee screening; in hiring him despite his incompetent driving record; to train him about proper driving; to train him regarding backing the tractor trailer; to train him regarding the proper use of spotters; to train him how to be attentive and do what he should have done or see what he should have seen in order to avoid the accident; to supervise him; for negligent entrustment of the vehicle despite the knowledge that he was an incompetent driver; and for negligent entrustment of the vehicle to him despite actual or constructive knowledge that he would drive the tractor trailer in a negligent, reckless, or careless manner, while knowing that he was likely to use the vehicle in a manner involving an unreasonable risk of physical harm to other drivers.

The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims asserted in the amended petition. They argued that because course and scope of employment had been admitted, under Louisiana jurisprudence, a plaintiff cannot maintain direct negligence claims against an employer while also maintaining a claim against an employee for which a plaintiff seeks to hold the employer vicariously liable.

The trial court granted the defendantspartial motion for summary judgment, dismissing with prejudice the claims raised in the amended petition. Plaintiff filed a devolutive appeal, and the court of appeal affirmed. Martin v. Thomas , 54,009 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/11/21), 326 So.3d 334.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

This court applies a de novo standard of review in considering lower court rulings on summary judgment motions. Bufkin v. Felipe's La., LLC , 14-288, p. 3 (La. 10/15/14), 171 So.3d 851, 854 ; Catahoula Par. Sch. Bd. v. La. Mach. Rentals, LLC , 12-2504, p. 8 (La. 10/15/13), 124 So.3d 1065, 1071. Thus, we use the same criteria that govern the district court's consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Id . Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966(A)(3)-(4), a court must grant a motion for summary judgment if the pleadings, memoranda,1 affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, certified medical records, written stipulations, and admissions show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bufkin , 14-0288 at p. 3, 171 So.3d at 854 ; Catahoula , 12-2504 at p. 8, 124 So.3d at 1071. The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, except those disallowed by art. 969; the procedure is favored and shall be construed to accomplish these ends. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 966(A)(2). A summary judgment may be rendered dispositive of a particular issue, theory of recovery, cause of action, or defense, in favor of one or more parties, even though the granting of the summary judgment does not dispose of the entire case as to that party or parties. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 966(E).

The burden of proof rests with the mover; nevertheless, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover's burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 966(D)(1). The burden is on the adverse party to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. "When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided [in La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 967(A)2 ], an adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided [in La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 967(A) ], must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be rendered against him." La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 967(B).

Applicant-plaintiff argues to this court that dismissing his direct negligence claims against Greer Logging is in contravention of various Louisiana Civil Code articles including those that require the fault of all persons contributing to the plaintiff's injury be quantified by the jury and those that require employers to be liable for damage caused by employees as well as general tort principles.

The defendants argue that when an employer admits that its employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident, direct negligence claims against the employer are "subsumed" by the driver's negligence and fault for which the employer will be vicariously liable.

This case presents an issue of first impression for this court. As always, we begin our analysis by looking at all relevant legislation as legislation is superior to any other source of law. Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr. v. Caddo Shreveport Sales & Use Tax Comm'n , 04-473, p. 34 (La. 4/1/05), 903 So.2d 1071, 1092 (citing La. Civ. Code art. 2 ). "[T]he paramount consideration in statutory construction is ascertainment of the legislative intent and the reason or reasons which prompted the Legislature to enact the law." M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 07-2371, p. 13 (La. 7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16, 27 (citing State v. Johnson , 03-2993, p. 12 (La. 10/19/04), 884 So.2d 568, 575 ). It is well established that "[t]he starting point for the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself." Dejoie v. Medley , 08-2223, p. 6 (La. 5/5/09), 9 So.3d 826, 829. When a statute is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the provision is applied as written with no further interpretation made in search of the Legislature's intent. Dejoie , 08-2223 at p. 6, 9 So.3d at 829 ; La. Civ. Code art. 9 ; La. R.S. 1:4. In the event the language of a statute is susceptible of different meanings, the interpretation must best conform to the purpose of the law. C.C. art. 10. When analyzing legislative history, it is presumed the Legislature's actions in crafting a law were knowing and intentional. M.J. Farms , 07-2371 at pp. 13-14, 998 So.2d at 27. More particularly, this court must assume the Legislature was aware of existing laws on the same subject, as well as established principles of statutory construction and the effect of their legislative acts. Id.

Louisiana Civil Code art. 2315(A) provides:

Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.

Louisiana Civil Code art. 2316 provi...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Werner Enters. v. Blake
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 18, 2023
    ... ... necessary to enable the jury to render a proper verdict ... Oldham v. Thomas , 864 S.W.2d 121, 126 (Tex ... App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993), rev'd in part on ... other grounds , 895 S.W.2d 352 (Tex. 1995) ... other collisions on I-20 that occurred shortly before ... Ali's collision with the Blakes' vehicle. These ... witnesses - Martin County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Ernest ... Wakefield, Helen Myers, and James Britain - testified about ... three collisions that occurred ... ...
  • Glaser v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • August 30, 2023
    ... ... reverse a trial court's decision to grant or deny a ... motion for new trial. Martin v ... Heritage Manor South Nursing Home, 2000-1023 (La ... 4/3/01),'784 So.2d 627, 632 ... [ 10 ] Dr. Everett Bonner, who ... introduction of evidence regarding Rail l's direct ... negligence. In Martin v. Thomas, ... 2021-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238, 245-rendered after ... the jury trial in this matter-the Louisiana Supreme Court ... ...
  • Landry v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • December 13, 2023
    ...710 So.2d 1077, 1080. Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court more recently recognized in Martin v. Thomas, 21-149 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238, 243, fn. 3, that vicarious liability is not a cause of action, but merely a method of holding one party liable for the conduct of another. Accor......
  • Anderson v. Dean
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • July 25, 2022
    ...is ascertainment of the legislative intent and the reason or reasons which prompted the Legislature to enact the law. Martin v. Thomas , 21-1490 (La. 6/1/22), 346 So.3d 238 (citing M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 07-2371 (La. 7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16, 27 ). When a law is clear and unam......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT