 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buford v. Cardinal Services12/12/2001
on of whether summary judgment is appropriate." Reynolds v. Select Properties, Ltd., 93-1480, p. 2 (La. 4/11/94); 634 So.2d 1180, 1183; Leger v. La. Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 98- 1098, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/99); 732 So.2d 654, 657, writ denied, 99-1253 (La. 6/18/99); 745 So.2d 30. Stated differently, this court "asks the same questions as does the trial court in determining whether summary judgment is appropriate: whether there is any genuine issue of material fact, and whether the mover-appellant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Labbe v. Chem. Waste Management, Inc., 00-1772, p. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/2/01); 786 So.2d 868, 872, writ denied, 2001-1602 (La. 9/14/01); 796 So.2d 685 (quoting Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512, p. 26 (La.7/5/94); 639 So.2d 730, 750).
Because this is a summary judgment case to which La.Code Civ.P. art. 966 et seq. is applicable, it is necessary to first determine who will bear the burden of proof at trial. Subpart (C)(2) of La.Code Civ.P. art. 966 explains that
The burden of proof remains with the movant. However, if the movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the movant'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 that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense.
Thereafter, if the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact.
The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. ยง 688(a) mandates that " ny seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law. . . ." While the Act affords an injured seaman the right to maintain an action, it is silent as to the definition of "seaman." The Act "therefore leaves to the courts the determination of exactly which maritime workers are entitled to admiralty's special protection." Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 355, 115 S.Ct. 2172, 2183 (1995). An employee need not perform traditional maritime activities to be considered a seaman. Indeed, as Cardinal conceded at oral argument, it is possible, under certain circumstances, for a wireline helper to achieve seaman status.
In keeping with the jurisprudential development of admiralty law, Mr. Buford has the burden of proving the elements of a twofold, conjunctive test for seaman status. "First, . . . `an employee's duties must "contribut to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission."' . . . Second, . . . a seaman must have a connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature." Chandris, 515 U.S. at 368, 115 S.Ct. at 2190 (citation omitted). See also Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548, 554, 117 S.Ct. 1535, 1540 (1997); Roberts v. Cardinal Services, 266 F.3d 368, 374 (5th Cir. 2001).
Because Cardinal is the movant and it is not to bear the burden of proof at trial on seaman status under the Jones Act, it is not required to negate all essential elements of the Mr. Buford's claims. The company must show an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the Mr. Buford's claims. If Cardinal is able to do this, then the burden of production shifts to Mr. Buford to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at tri
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|