 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bates v. King11/2/2005
), the defendant, a general contractor, constructed the building at issue then leased it as a restaurant to his solely-owned corporation, which hired the plaintiff to manage the business. The court identified the "narrow issue" in the case as "whether [the defendant] was in the restaurant business at the time of plaintiff's injury." Id. at 655 (emphasis added). In determining that the defendant was not, the court stated:
[The defendant] was a contractor who borrowed money to invest in a restaurant. His interest in the restaurant was purely as an investor, not a restauranteur. He did not participate in the day-to-day management and operation of the restaurant. He was not engaged in the normal course and scope of the restaurant business at the time of plaintiff's injury and thus, is not entitled to the immunity provided by La.R.S. 23:1032 for stockholders, officers and directors of a corporate employer. Id.
Unlike the defendants in Cormier and Burton, the Kings have established themselves as restauranteurs. The record demonstrates that they actively participate in Pitt Grill's business, which is the operation of five restaurants, not only the one restaurant in which Ms. Bates was injured. Although the Kings have delegated the day-to-day affairs of each restaurant to managers, Mr. King supervises those managers and Mrs. King plans the menus and recipes, signs checks, and redecorates the restaurants. Their tax return for 2002, which includes W-2s issued to both of them from Pitt Grill, substantiates their claim that their employment with Pitt Grill was their primary occupation at the time of Ms. Bates' injury . Under these circumstances, we do not find that the Kings' participation in other businesses automatically precludes the immunity in La.R.S. 23:1032. Furthermore, we find that the facts on summary judgment are not in dispute; the parties have simply offered differing interpretations of the statutes and jurisprudence. On the record before us, we find that the Kings have clearly demonstrated that they were engaged in the normal course and scope of their employment with Pitt Grill at the time of Ms. Bates' injury. Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted recognizing their entitlement to the immunity of La.R.S. 23:1032.
Decree
For the above reasons, the trial court's denial of summary judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
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.
|
|