James Broq v. Xavier University of Louisiana and the Green Project, Inc.

JAMES BROQ * NO. 2024-CA-0755

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
XAVIER UNIVERSITY OF *
LOUISIANA AND THE GREEN FOURTH CIRCUIT
PROJECT, INC. *
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2021-00006, DIVISION “L”
Honorable Kern A. Reese, Judge
******
Judge Daniel L. Dysart
******
(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge
Karen K. Herman)

Pride J. Doran
Quincy L. Cawthorne
Raven C. Boxie
Micaela Simpson
DORAN & CAWTHORNE, P.L.L.C.
529 East Landry Street (70570)
P.O. Box 2119
Opelousas, LA 70571

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Richard A. Bordelon
Ian P. Gunn
Todd R. Gennardo
Dylan K. Knoll
DENECHAUD AND DENECHAUD, L.L.C.
201 St. Charles Avenue
Suite 3920
New Orleans, LA 70170

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

REVERSED AND REMANDED
APRIL 1, 2025

DLD In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, Broq James, appeals the trial
JCL court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Xavier University
KKH
of Louisiana (“Xavier”), and the dismissal with prejudice of his claims against

Xavier. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and

remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 18, 2020, Mr. James volunteered for a community service

project that Xavier coordinated with The Green Project, Inc. (“TGP”), a non-profit

organization, in observance of Xavier’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service.

Xavier requires all students to participate in a certain number of volunteer hours in

order to graduate. Participation in the Martin Luther King Day, Jr. Day of Service

was additionally a prerequisite for participation in the student government

association at Xavier. Xavier also provided transportation for Mr. James to the site

of the service project. Mr. James was injured during the service project while he

was moving and re-arranging salvaged doors when several stacked doors fell on

him.

1

Mr. James filed a petition for damages due to negligence on January 4, 2021,

naming Xavier and TGP as defendants. Xavier filed an answer on February 25,

2021. On June 10, 2024, Xavier filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing

that it did not have garde of the premises where Mr. James was injured. On July

11, 2024, Mr. James filed his opposition to the motion for summary judgment,

maintaining that the only theory of liability he alleged against Xavier was

negligence tied to a duty of care. A hearing on the motion for summary judgment

took place on July 26, 2024. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor

of Xavier on August 12, 2024, and dismissed Mr. James’ claims with prejudice. It

is from this judgment that Mr. James now appeals.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. James raises the following assignments of error: (1) the trial

court erred in granting Xavier’s motion for summary judgment and, in effect,

dismissing all of Mr. James’ claims; (2) the trial court erred in finding that the

issue of garde is a primary consideration; and (3) the trial court erred in finding

that Xavier’s actions were not negligent.

The appropriate appellate standard of review on a motion for summary

judgment is a de novo standard of review. See Guilbeaux v. Lupo Enter., L.L.C.,

21-0053, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/19/21), 321 So.3d 447, 451. This Court stated:

Appellate courts review the grant or denial of a motion for
summary judgment de novo, using the same criteria applied by trial
courts to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate. This
standard of review requires the appellate court to look at the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, to determine if they show that
no genuine issue as to a material fact exists, and that the mover is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material when its
existence or nonexistence may be essential to the plaintiff’s cause of
action under the applicable theory of recovery; a fact is material if it
potentially insures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant’s ultimate

2

success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute. A genuine
issue is one as to which reasonable persons could disagree; if
reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, no need for trial
on that issue exists and summary judgment is appropriate. To affirm a
summary judgment, we must find reasonable minds would inevitably
conclude that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of the
applicable law on the facts before the court.

Id. at pp. 4-5, 321 So.3d at 451-52 (quoting Chatelain v. Flour Daniel Const. Co.,

14-1312, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/10/15), 179 So.3d 791, 793).

La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1) states:

The burden of proof rests with the mover. Nevertheless, if the mover
will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the
court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover’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 the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential
to the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense. The burden is on the
adverse party to produce factual support sufficient to establish the
existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

La. C.C.P. art. 966(D)(1).

In the instant case, Mr. James argues that La. C.C. art. 2315 negligence (duty

of care) should apply, while Xavier argues that La. C.C. art. 2317 negligence

(premises liability) should apply as Xavier was not the owner of the premises

where the injury occurred and did not have control or garde over the site. Mr.

James argues that Xavier owed a duty to him to ensure that the selected project

location was safe for him and other students who volunteered to work at the

various sites that Xavier selected. Mr. James further contends that this duty was

breached and such breach caused the injuries he sustained at TGP.

To prevail on a negligence claim in Louisiana, plaintiffs are required to

establish five elements: (1) proof that the defendant had a duty to conform his

conduct to a specific standard (duty element), (2) proof that the defendant’s

3

conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard (breach element), (3) proof

that the defendant’s substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff’s

injuries (cause-in-fact element), (4) proof that the defendant’s standard of conduct

was a legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (proximate cause element), and (5)

proof of actual damages (damages element). Desselle v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co., 21-553, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/8/22), 343 So.3d 895, 899 (citations

omitted).

Mr. James’ participation at TGP was solely through an organized university

program. Xavier required students to participate in community service in order to

graduate. Xavier selected each community service location and arranged for

students to volunteer at every project location. Xavier organized the event,

provided transportation to and from the site, and tracked student participation

through volunteer logs. However, during the hearing on the motion for summary

judgment, the trial court opined: “This wasn’t a project that was related to the

university, as I understand it.” This statement appears to be contrary to the facts of

this case.

In its appellate brief, Xavier admits that “TGP acted negligently throughout

this process: failing to ensure all volunteers adhered to their safety instructions,

failing to supervise volunteers engaged in physical lifting, allowing volunteers to

work with a potential safety hazard, and failing to assist Mr. James while he was

lifting doors by himself.” This admission raises many questions concerning what

policies and procedures, if any, Xavier employed in screening the service projects

that were selected for its students to choose.

Based on the record before this Court, there appear to be a number of

genuine issues of material facts concerning the incident that occurred on January

4

18, 2020, which led to Mr. Mr. James’ injuries. There are questions regarding

whether Xavier owed a duty to review and make safety assessments for the service

projects to which it directed its students; whether that potential duty was breached

and whether that potential breach caused Mr. James’ injuries. The issue of garde

should not have been the deciding factor in granting summary judgment.

The questions of duty and breach of duty under La. C.C. art. 2315 should have

precluded the granting of summary judgment in this case.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s granting of

Xavier’s motion for summary judgment and remand this matter to the trial court

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

5