Zanzabar Cosse v. Lafarge North America, Inc.; Lafarge Aggregates Southeast, Inc.; Cajun Industries, LLC; Cajun Constructors, LLC; Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.; and Monsanto Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

ZANZABAR COSSE NO. 2020 CW 1183

VERSUS

LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
LAFARGE AGGREGATES
SOUTHEAST, INC.; CAJUN
INDUSTRIES, LLC; CAJUN
CONSTRUCTORS,
APRIL 1, 2021
LLC; JACOBS
ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.; AND
MONSANTO COMPANY

In Re: Monsanto Company, 19th
applying for supervisory writs,
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge,
No. 659503.

BEFORE: THERIOT, WOLFE, AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s October 19, 2020 judgment
denying the motion for summary judgment filed by relator,
Monsanto Company, is reversed. The owner of a
thing under
construction does not have for
custody purposes of
liability
under La. Civ. Code art. 2317. An exception to that rule occurs
when the owner exercises operational control over the
contractor' s methods of operation or gives express or implied
authorization to unsafe practices. Young v. City of Plaquemine,
2002- 0280 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 10/ 02), 818 So. 2d 898, 899, writ

denied, 2002- 1601 ( La. 9/ 30/ 02), 825 So. 2d 1196. Monsanto
pointed out the absence of factual support for the plaintiff' s
premises liability claim, i. e., that it exercised operational

control over the construction site and, the
specifically,
temporary roadway, where the plaintiff' s accident occurred. The
plaintiff failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of

material fact on this element of his burden of proof. See La.
Civ. Code arts. 2317 and 2317. 1; La. Code Civ. P. art. 966( A)( 3)
and ( D)( 1). See also Young, 818 So. 2d at 899 ( The custody
determination includes consideration of whether the owner bears
such a relationship as to have the right of direction and
control over the thing.); Klein v. Cisco -Eagle, Inc., 37, 398
La.
App. 2d Cir. 9/ 24/ 03), 855 So. 2d 844, 850 ( Operational
control exists only if the principal has direct supervision over
the step- by- step process of accomplishing the work such that the
contractor is not
entirely free to do the work in his own way.)
Therefore, Monsanto Company' s motion for summary judgment is
granted, and the plaintiff' s claims against Monsanto are

dismissed with prejudice.

MRT

EW
CHH

C T O/F APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY CL RK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT