 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Collins v. Huynh12/22/2004
AFFIRMED.
FACTS
Daniel Collins was a patron at Lipsticks, a strip club in Lafayette, on the night of September 6, 2000, and into the early morning hours of September 7. According to his petition, Collins "had been drinking heavily, and was drunk, [having] drunk both drinks which he had purchased himself and drinks which were given to him free of charge by the business." While intoxicated, Collins attempted to climb a ladder into the crow's nest housing the disc jockey's booth. He was unsuccessful and fell off the ladder, breaking his leg. Employees of Lipsticks took Collins to the hospital, where he was treated. Collins alleges that someone from Lipsticks informed him that they would pay for his treatment, including surgery that he needed. On the morning of the surgery, however, he was informed that the club would not pay for the surgery. The surgery was delayed, resulting in more serious injury to Collins' leg.
Collins filed this suit against Lipsticks, A Gentleman's Club, Dien Duc Huynh and Vo Tuyetnga Thi, the owners of the building where Lipsticks is located, and Mohammed Makki, Jermac of Lafayette, Inc., Huynh and Thi, the owners of Lipsticks (hereinafter collectively refered to as "defendants"). He alleged that the ladder created a hazardous condition, that the defendants failed to properly supervise Collins in his inebriated condition, that they failed to protect him from further harm after he fell, and that they failed to provide medical care after promising they would. Following discovery, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial court heard arguments on the motion on September 22, 2003. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Collins' intoxication put the case squarely under the auspices of La.R.S. 9:2800.1. The statute provides immunity to licensed providers of alcohol for the injuries caused by an intoxicated patron to himself or others, and thus the defendants could not be held liable for Collins' injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment and this appeal followed.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The appellant, David Collins, does not include in his brief "a specification or assignment of alleged errors relied upon," as required by the Uniform Rules for the Courts of Appeal, ยง2-12.4. In his "Summary of the Argument," he alleges that he Court has misapplied Louisiana law as to those facts it has addressed; specifically, La.R.S. 9:2800.1(A) does not preclude another "proximate cause" of an injury and thus does not give any immunity to a bar owner without further reading of the statute, specifically, paragraphs B and C. Paragraphs B and C reference immunity for damages, but only ". . . off the premises . . . ."
DISCUSSION
Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria that govern the trial court's consideration of whether a summary judgment is appropriate. Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., 591 So.2d 342 (La.1991). The mover is entitled to judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with supporting affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue of material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B).
The statute at issue in this case is La.R.S. 9:2800.1, which states in its entirety:
A. The legislature finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the sale or serving or furnishing of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury , including death and property damage, inflicted by an intoxicated person upon himself or upon another person.
B. Notw
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|