Meg Vincent, Wife of and Keith Vincent, Individually and on Behalf of the Minor Children, Emma Vincent, Camille Vincent, Harrison Vincent, and Hudson Vincent Versus National General Insurance Company, Dr. Fredrick Dantagnan on Behalf of the Minor Jacqueline Dantagnan and Hudson Insurance Company

MEG VINCENT, WIFE OF AND KEITH NO. 21-C-227
VINCENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, EMMA FIFTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT, CAMILLE VINCENT, HARRISON
VINCENT, AND HUDSON VINCENT COURT OF APPEAL

VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA

NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, DR. FREDRICK DANTAGNAN
ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR JACQUELINE
DANTAGNAN AND HUDSON INSURANCE
COMPANY

ON APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY REVIEW FROM THE
TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 782-360, DIVISION "F"
HONORABLE MICHAEL P. MENTZ, JUDGE PRESIDING

October 13, 2021

MARC E. JOHNSON
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson

REVERSED AND REMANDED
MEJ
FHW
JGG

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RELATOR,
MEG VINCENT, WIFE OF AND KEITH VINCENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF THE MINOR CHILDREN, EMMA VINCENT, CAMILLE
VINCENT, HARRISON VINCENT AND HUDSON VINCENT
Vanessa Motta
Todd C. Comeaux

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT,
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DR. FREDRICK
DANTAGNAN, IV & JACQUELINE DANTAGNAN
Peter M. Donovan

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT,
HUDSON SPECALITY INSURANCE COMPANY
Edwin C. Laizer
Christopher A. D'Amour
Kyle L. Potts
Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell

JOHNSON, J.

Relators, Meg and Keith Vincent, individually and on behalf of their minor

children (collectively “the Vincents”), seek review of the 24th Judicial District

Court’s March 26, 2021 judgment denying their motion for partial summary

judgment on the issue of liability. Relators urge that the district court erred when it

failed to grant Relators’ motion because defendant Jacqueline Dantagnan admitted

that she was completely at fault regarding the accident that occurred at an

intersection in Kenner, LA, and thus, there are no genuine issues as to material fact

and Relators are entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as a

matter of law.

On April 17, 2017, Meg Vincent was travelling eastbound on Joe Yenni

Boulevard and crossing the intersection of Loyola Drive when her motor vehicle

was struck by another vehicle being operated by Ms. Dantagnan, when Ms.

Dantagnan attempted to make a left turn after she had been travelling in the

opposite direction on Joe Yenni Boulevard. Both parties maintain that their

respective traffic signals were green at the time of the accident. Relators argue that,

because Ms. Dantagnan admitted in her deposition that she made a left turn into the

lane the car operated by Mrs. Vincent occupied and a left-turning motorist is

presumed to be at fault when involved in an accident, the burden shifts to the

defendant Ms. Dantagnan to absolve herself of responsibility. Relators also insist

that Respondents, Hudson Specialty Insurance Group and National General

Insurance, provided no factual evidence or expert testimony to support a

conclusion that Mrs. Vincent may have also been at fault. Respondents counter

that Relators’ writ application is untimely – Relators’ writ application was filed on

May 17, 2021, more than 30 days after the oral ruling the judge rendered on March

21-C-227 1

11, 2021 (according to the official court record.)1 Respondents also urge that left-

turning drivers are not subject to absolute liability and there are questions of fact

for the jury regarding possible comparative fault.

Summary judgments are reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate

court using the same criteria that govern the trial court's determination of

whether summary judgment is appropriate. Maiorana v. Melancon Metal Bldgs.,

Inc., 05-933 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/25/06, 5–6); 927 So.2d 700, 703, as amended on

reh'g (May 10, 2006). “In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge's

role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence or to determine the truth of the

matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. All

doubts should be resolved in the non-moving party's favor.” Id. (citations omitted).

The decision as to the propriety of a grant of a motion for summary

judgment must be made with reference to the substantive law applicable to the

case. Henry v. Reeves, 19-550 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/28/20); 296 So.3d 1076, 1082,

writ denied, 20-646 (La. 9/24/20); 301 So.3d 1176.

The duty of a left-turning motorist is set forth in La. R.S.
32:122, which provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he driver of a
vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield

1
The trial court issued an oral ruling denying the motion for partial summary judgment in open court on
March 11, 2021. On March 27, 2021, Relators timely filed a notice of intent and the trial judge set the
return date “as required by law” and as mandated by Uniform Rules – Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3.
Pursuant to Uniform Rules – Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-3, parties have 30 days from the date of notice of
judgment to file a supervisory writ. Parties may seek an extension of time to file a writ beyond the 30-
day period “upon a proper showing” and only “if filed within the original or an extended return date
period. An application not filed in the appellate court within the time so fixed or extended shall not be
considered, in the absence of a showing that the delay in filing was not due to the applicant’s fault.”
Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art 1914, the rendition of an oral interlocutory ruling in open court constitutes
notice of the judgment to all parties. Therefore, Relators had 30 days from the date of the March 11, 2021
oral ruling, or, until Monday, April 12, 2021, to file a supervisory writ. On that date, April 12, 2021,
Relators filed a proposed “order” setting the return date as May 1, 2021, which the trial judge signed on
April 13, 2021. On the showing made, we are unable to determine whether Relators made a “proper
showing” as required for an extension of the 30-day time delay pursuant under Rule 4-3; thus the district
court may have erred in setting a return date outside of the 30-day time period and effectively granting
Relators an extension. However, this Court has nevertheless considered writ applications under similar
circumstances and held that, “in instances in which the applicant files the writ with the court of appeal
within the improvidently set delay period, appellate courts are loath to penalize the applicant.” McCroskey
v. Munlin, 20-338 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/11/21), 2021 WL 933488. Consequently, we also find the
subsequent motion for extension of time, filed on April 27, 2021, prior to the May 1, 2021 return date set,
to be timely. On April 28, 2021, the trial judge signed an order extending the return date to May 17,
2021. Accordingly, we consider Relator’s writ application, filed on May 17, 2021, to be timely under the
circumstances.

21-C-227 2

the right of way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite
direction which are within the intersection or so close thereto as to
constitute an immediate hazard.” Additionally, La. R.S. 32:104(A)
states that “[n]o person shall ... turn a vehicle from a direct course or
move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement
can be made with reasonable safety.”

Drivers executing left turns have a heavy burden of care under
the law. Before attempting a left turn, a motorist should ascertain
whether it can be completed safely. Because a left turn is one of the
most dangerous maneuvers for a driver to execute, there is a
presumption of negligence on a left-turning motorist involved in a
motor vehicle accident. Additionally, the oncoming driver may take
advantage of a presumption of the left-turning motorist's negligence
when the oncoming driver proves that the left-turning motorist
executed a left-hand turn and crossed the center line at the time of
impact.

Id. at 1082. (Citations omitted).

In the instant case, we find that Ms. Dantagnan has not overcome the

presumption of liability against a left-turning motorist, or met the burden of

proving that she was “free[] from negligence” when she attempted to execute the

left turn. See Anderson v. May, 01-1031 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/13/02); 812 So.2d 81.

Ms. Vincent stated that she “possibly” saw vehicles turn in front of her before she

saw Ms. Dantagnan’s vehicle for the first time “[a]s she was turning.” Ms.

Dantagnan asserted that she “was following a big truck that turned very fast to the

left directly in front of her” after “seeing a green light.” “[A] left-turning motorist

has a strong duty of care.” Baker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49,468 (La.

App. 2 Cir. 1/21/15); 162 So.3d 405, 409. This duty includes “properly signaling

an intention to turn left and keeping a proper lookout for both oncoming and

overtaking traffic in order to ascertain that the left turn can be made with

reasonable safety.” See Id. The fact that Ms. Dantagnan proceeded with the green

light after the vehicle in front of her completed a left turn without incident did not

absolve Ms. Dantagnan of her responsibility to yield the right of way to Mrs.

Vincent. Mrs. Vincent, the favored motorist, was not obligated to slow down to

21-C-227 3

yield the right of way to allow Ms. Dantagnan to complete her turn, as

Respondents suggest in their Opposition. An on-coming motorist has a right to

assume that a left-turning motorist will yield the right-of-way. Severson v. St.

Catherine of Sienna Catholic Church, 97-1026 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/11/98); 707

So.2d 1026, 1030, writ denied, 98-0653 (La. 4/24/98); 717 So.2d 1178.

Respondents also aver that Mrs. Vincent may have been speeding or illegally

operating her vehicle by driving through a red light signal to traffic traveling

eastbound on Yenni Boulevard immediately preceding the accident. However, no

factual support or expert testimony has been presented to bolster Respondents’

assertions. Ultimate or conclusory facts or conclusions of law are not to be utilized

on a summary judgment motion. Henry v. Reeves, supra, at 1083. Mere

conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation will

not support a finding of a genuine issue of material fact. Hazelett v. Louisiana-1

Gaming, 16-297 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/21/16); 210 So.3d 447, 452.

Based on the foregoing, we find that Respondents failed to rebut the

presumption in favor of Ms. Vincent, the favored, on-coming motorist, and failed

to provide a basis for denying her motion for partial summary judgment.

Therefore, the trial court erred in not granting partial summary judgment on the

issue of liability in favor of Ms. Vincent and, accordingly, the writ application is

granted. Because there are no genuine issues as to material fact and Relators are

entitled to judgment on the issue of liability as a matter of law, partial summary

judgment on the issue of liability is hereby granted in favor of Relators.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

21-C-227 4

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
OCTOBER 13, 2021 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

21-C-227
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE MICHAEL P. MENTZ (DISTRICT JUDGE)
TODD C. COMEAUX (RELATOR) VANESSA MOTTA (RELATOR) KYLE L. POTTS (RESPONDENT)
LEIGH ANN TSCHIRN SCHELL
(RESPONDENT)

MAILED
PETER M. DONOVAN (RESPONDENT) CHRISTOPHER A. D'AMOUR
ATTORNEY AT LAW (RESPONDENT)
4640 RYE STREET EDWIN C. LAIZER (RESPONDENT)
SUITE 100 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
METAIRIE, LA 70006 701 POYDRAS STREET
SUITE 4500
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70139