250 So. 3d 383
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On June 22, 2015, a three-car rear-end collision occurred: Mire was lead car, Sam was the middle car, and Guidry was the rear car. Mire sued Guidry, Guidry’s employer (Butcher Air), State National (their insurer), Tricia Sam, EAN Holdings (owner of Sam’s car), and National Automotive (Sam’s insurer).
- Mire’s petition alleged two alternative scenarios: (1) Guidry rear-ended Sam, pushing Sam into Mire; or (2) Sam first hit Mire, then Guidry hit Sam because Guidry followed too closely.
- Sam and National Automotive moved for summary judgment to dismiss Mire’s claims against them, relying on Mire’s deposition statement that he felt only one rear impact (supporting Sam’s claim she was pushed into Mire).
- Guidry, Butcher Air, and State National opposed, producing Mire’s medical records in which Mire told treating physicians he felt two distinct impacts; they argued this created a genuine issue of material fact.
- The trial court granted Sam’s motion and dismissed Sam and National Automotive. The court of appeal reversed, holding (1) the Guidry defendants may appeal despite Mire’s not appealing and (2) a genuine issue of material fact exists as to number of impacts, so summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right of co-defendant (Guidry Ds) to appeal a summary judgment dismissing another defendant (Sam) | Mire (plaintiff) did not appeal; judgment final between those parties | Sam: dismissal is final as to plaintiff; co-defendant cannot appeal to preserve comparative fault attribution | Court: Guidry Ds may appeal; denying them would bar proof of their affirmative defenses and yield absurd results |
| Whether Mire felt one impact or two (material to causation/allocation of fault) | Mire’s deposition: he felt only one rear impact (supports Sam’s theory) | Guidry Ds: Mire told treating physicians he felt two separate impacts (medical records) | Court: genuine issue of material fact exists; credibility/perception issues improper to resolve on summary judgment |
| Whether credibility may be weighed at summary judgment | Sam: deposition proves single-impact fact—entitling them to judgment | Guidry Ds: inconsistencies with medical records create factual dispute; credibility cannot be resolved on paper | Court: credibility and weight of evidence are for trial, not summary judgment; summary judgment reversed |
| Effect of La. C.C.P. art. 966(G) / finality on allocation of fault | Sam: per precedent, dismissal becomes final and dismissed party excluded from allocation | Guidry Ds: applying 966(G) without permitting appeal leaves co-defendant unable to prove third-party/comparative fault (absurd) | Court: allowed appeal by co-defendant to avoid unjust result and to permit adjudication of pleaded affirmative defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Grimes v. La. Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 36 So.3d 215 (La. 2010) (finality of plaintiff-nonappeal of summary judgment and effect on dismissed defendant)
- Dixon v. Gray Ins. Co., 223 So.3d 658 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2017) (discussion of La. C.C.P. art. 966(G) effect on allocation of fault)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (summary judgment as procedural device when no genuine issue of material fact)
- Wright v. La. Power & Light, 951 So.2d 1058 (La. 2007) (appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (definition of "material" fact for summary judgment)
- Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 870 So.2d 1002 (La. 2004) (summary judgment review standards)
- King v. Parish Nat'l Bank, 885 So.2d 540 (La. 2004) (summary judgment standards)
- Nunez v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 780 So.2d 348 (La. 2001) (appeal brings up only portions adverse to appellant)
- Lopez v. Thibodeaux, 28 So.3d 1215 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2010) (defendant bears burden to prove affirmative defenses)