Corey Scott v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Corporation, Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Curtis Johnson, Coco-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Greenwich Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

COREY SCOTT * NO. 2020-CA-0136

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC, * FOURTH CIRCUIT
ENTERGY CORPORATION,
ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, * STATE OF LOUISIANA
INC., CURTIS JOHNSON,
COCO-COLA *
REFRESHMENTS USA, INC.,
GREENWICH INSURANCE *
COMPANY, STATE FARM *******
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY

RLB BELSOME, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS

I concur in the majority’s opinion to affirm the trial court’s judgment

granting a directed verdict in favor of Cox. Legal sufficiency of the evidence

challenges, such as those presented by motions for directed verdict, are subject to

the de novo standard of review that is used for all legal issues. Hall v. Folger

Coffee Co., 03-1734, p.10 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So. 2d 90, 99. When a trial court

considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposed to the

motion for directed verdict, and finds that it points so strongly and overwhelmingly

in favor of the moving party that reasonable minds could not arrive at a contrary

verdict on that issue, the directed verdict should be granted. Pennington v.

Ochsner Clinic Found., 17-0647, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/25/18), 245 So.3d 58, 62,

reh'g denied (5/08/18), writ denied, 18-1034 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So.3d 791, and

writ denied, 2018-1020 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So.3d 801.

In its cross-claim, Entergy alleges that Cox is liable for damages caused by

its defective line, pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2317.1.1 As discussed by the majority,

1
The owner or custodian of a thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its ruin, vice, or
defect, only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have
known of the ruin, vice, or defect which caused the damage, that the damage could have been
prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care.
Nothing in this Article shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur in an appropriate case.
1

there was no evidence presented at trial concerning Cox’s knowledge of the

condition of the line. Given that Entergy did not establish all of the elements set

forth under La. C.C. art 2317.1,particularly the knowledge element, reasonable

persons could not reach a contrary verdict. As such, the trial court did not err in

granting a directed verdict in favor of Cox. For these reasons, I concur in the

majority’s opinion to affirm the trial court’s judgment.

2