Selvage v. GAINEY TRANSP. SERVICE, INC., 2003-CA-0959.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
• Citation: 859 So.2d 813
• Docket Number: No. 2003-CA-0959.,2003-CA-0959.
• Parties: Tirrell L. SELVAGE v. GAINEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC., Aero Bulk Carrier, Inc., Glenn Anderson, Individually and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company.
• Decision Date: 08 October 2003

859 So.2d 813

Tirrell L. SELVAGE
v.
GAINEY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC., Aero Bulk Carrier, Inc., Glenn Anderson, Individually and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company

No. 2003-CA-0959.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

October 8, 2003.

859 So.2d 814

Gothard J. Reck, Hugh C. Uhalt, Uhalt & Reck, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant

Gregory S. LaCour, Lawrence J. Ernst, Christovich & Kearney, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellee.

(Court composed of Chief Judge WILLIAM H. BYRNES III, Judge TERRI F. LOVE, Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD).

EDWIN A. LOMBARD, Judge.

This appeal is from a summary judgment in favor of defendants¹, Aero Bulk Carrier, Inc., Glen Anderson, individually, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company, and against plaintiff,

859 So.2d 815

Tirrell L. Selvage. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

On March 29, 1999, at approximately 4 p.m., plaintiff/appellant Tyrell Selvage (Selvage) rear-ended a truck leased by defendant/appellee Aero Bulk Carrier, Inc. (Aero Bulk), and driven by defendant/appellee Glenn Anderson (Anderson) as the truck negotiated a turn on U.S. Hwy 90. Selvage filed this lawsuit on May 24, 1999, against defendants Anderson, his employer, Aero Bulk, and Aero Bulk's insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company (U.S.F. & G.), alleging that his injuries were a result of Anderson's negligence.

After two mistrials were declared, the case was transferred to a different division of Civil District Court on May 24, 2002, and the defendants moved for summary judgment. After the motion hearing on December 13, 2002, the trial court found that the plaintiff raised no issue of material fact as to whether the defendant was contributorily negligent in causing the accident at issue and, accordingly, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff challenges this judgment on appeal.

Discussion

On appeal, motions for summary judgment are reviewed de novo. Spicer v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 97-2406 (La.App. 4th Cir.4/8/98); 712 So.2d 226, 227. Because summary judgment is now favored in Louisiana, the rules regarding such judgments should be liberally applied. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 966C(1). An issue is genuine if reasonable person could disagree. Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, 93-2512 (La.7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730, 751. When, as in this case, the moving party points out that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action or defense, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce factual support sufficient to satisfy his evidentiary burden at trial. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 966(c)(2)...