Cook v. Asbestos Corp.
123 So. 3d 731
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs, surviving spouse and children, sue Hunt Tool Co. and insurers for mesothelioma/death from asbestos exposure.
- Plaintiffs allege Catherine Cook was exposed via her father Leonce Waguespack, Sr., who worked for Hunt Tool and brought asbestos home.
- Defendants move for summary judgment, asserting no competent evidence Hunt supplied Waguespack with an asbestos vest and gloves.
- Trial court grants summary judgment on October 2, 2012; plaintiffs appeal.
- Statutory framework: amended La. C.C.P. 966 requires only evidence admitted at the summary judgment hearing to be considered.
- Plaintiffs’ attached deposition and photos were not admitted into evidence, so no genuine issue exists; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Article 966(E) on evidence considered | Evidence attached supports vest/gloves provision. | Only admitted evidence at hearing may be considered. | Admitted-evidence rule controls; no genuine issue. |
| Genuine issue of material fact about vest/gloves | Waguespack wore Hunt-provided asbestos gear; exposure shown. | No competent evidence Hunt supplied vest/gloves. | No genuine issue without admitted evidence; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (standard for de novo review of summary judgments)
- Nuccio v. Robert, 761 So.2d 84 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2000) (proof Burden shifting on summary judgment)
- Champagne v. Ward, 893 So.2d 773 (La. 2005) (articulates burden and proof standards in summary judgment)