 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bates v. King11/2/2005
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Michael G. Sullivan, and Elizabeth A. Pickett, Judges.
WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Robert C. King and Jana Cole King (the Kings), who are officers, shareholders, and employees of Pitt Grill, Inc. (Pitt Grill), seek supervisory writs from the trial court's denial of their motion for summary judgment in which they asserted the immunity of La.R.S. 23:1032 to the tort claims of Dianne Bates, a Pitt Grill employee who was injured in the course and scope of her employment. In an unpublished ruling, this court ordered the matter set for briefing, argument, and opinion. Bates v. King, CW-04-1564 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/1/05). For the following reasons, we grant the writ and remand the case to the trial court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
Facts and Procedural History
On September 10, 2002, Ms. Bates slipped and fell while working as a waitress at a Pitt Grill restaurant in Alexandria, Louisiana. She sued the Kings, as owners of the building, and Pitt Grill, as their lessee, alleging that a defect in the roof allowed water to accumulate in the kitchen area where the accident occurred. This court affirmed the dismissal of Pitt Grill on an exception of no cause of action in Bates v. King, 04-1591 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/05), 899 So.2d 202.
The Kings then filed this motion for summary judgment, arguing that, as officers of Pitt Grill, they are immune from tort liability under La.R.S. 23:1032. In support of their motion, they attached their individual affidavits, in which they state that their primary occupation is serving as officers of Pitt Grill. In opposition, Ms. Bates introduced depositions and tax records showing that the Kings have other business interests.
At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the trial court stated that "I have no doubt that . . . as employees of Pitt Grill, that they have an immunity. As lessors of the building, I have a different opinion." The trial court then denied the motion, stating in part:
This has nothing to do with employment. This has to do with two people . . . who leased the building to a corporation, a separate entity. The fact that they're . . . shareholders of the corporation is just incidental. . . .
he essential point in this case, is the capacity in which the defendants are being sued and that is, in their capacity as lessor and owner of the building. (Emphasis added.)
In their writ application, the Kings argue one assignment of error: "Whether Louisiana law allows an employee to maintain a suit in tort against shareholders, officers or employees of her employer who are in the normal course of their employment at the time of the accident under the dual capacity doctrine."
Opinion
Summary Judgment
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). A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B). Summary judgment procedure is favored and shall be construed "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A)(2).
Dual Capacity Doctrine
The trial court's comments regarding the Kings bei
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|