Joseph Dalton Guidry v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

06-658

JOSEPH DALTON GUIDRY

VERSUS

LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

************

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 80220,
HONORABLE J. BYRON HEBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Michael G. Sullivan, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Billy Howard
Ezell, Judges.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Charles C. Garrison
Caffery, Oubre, Campbell & Garrison, L.L.P.
Post Office Drawer 12410
New Iberia, Louisiana 70562-2410
(337) 364-1816
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company
David A. Trahan
Roxanne Trahan

Pamela B. Lolan
Attorney at Law
613 Little Farms Avenue
River Ridge, Louisiana 70123
(504) 305-2931
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants:
Joseph Dalton Guidry

SULLIVAN, Judge.

Joseph Guidry appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his claims for bodily injury

against David and Roxanne Trahan and their insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual

Insurance Company. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

Mr. Guidry was injured during the course and scope of his employment with

Circle A Farms, Inc., Timothy Albert, Stacey Albert Farms, LLC, and Stacey Albert

(the Alberts). He was injured at the end of the work day on August 1, 2002, as he

performed maintenance on the tractor he drove that day. As per his employer’s

instructions, Mr. Guidry left his tractor running while he performed the required

maintenance. During this time, David and Roxane Trahan’s eleven-year-old son,

Quintin, who is also the Alberts’ nephew, climbed into the cab of Mr. Guidry’s

tractor. While in the cab, Quintin turned the steering wheel, which caused

Mr. Guidry to become pinned between one of the tractor wheels and the tire well. As

a result, Mr. Guidry suffered serious injuries to his hip, back, and neck.

Mr. Guidry filed suit against the Alberts and Quintin’s parents seeking to

recover damages under La.Civ.Code arts. 23151 and 2318,2 respectively. The Alberts

were granted summary judgment on the basis of workers’ compensation being

Mr. Guidry’s exclusive remedy against them. Mr. Guidry appealed the grant of

summary judgment in favor of the Alberts but then dismissed his appeal.

1
Louisiana Civil Code article 2315 provides in pertinent part: “A. Every act whatever of
man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.”
2
Louisiana Civil Code article 2318 provides in pertinent part: “The father and the mother
and, after the decease of either, the surviving parent, are responsible for the damage occasioned by
their minor or unemancipated children, residing with them, or placed by them under the care of other
persons, reserving to them recourse against those persons.”

The Trahans also filed a motion for summary judgment in which they argued

that Mr. Guidry’s exclusive remedy for his injuries is workers’ compensation. After

a hearing, the trial court dismissed the motion, finding a material issue of fact existed

as to whether Quintin was in the course and scope of employment when Mr. Guidry

was injured. The Trahans reurged their motion for summary judgment after obtaining

additional evidence on the issue of Quintin’s employment and activities at the time

Mr. Guidry was injured. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the

Trahans, dismissing them as defendants. The judgment in favor of the Trahans is the

subject of this appeal.

Issues

Mr. Guidry assigns three errors:

1. Whether Quintin was an employee of the Alberts and entitled to
tort immunity?

2. Does an illegally-hired minor’s performance of an illegal task in
violation of the child Labor Law impose civil tort liability against
that child and his parents when that minor injures a co-employee
while performing a task prohibited by law?

3. Was Quintin, an illegally-hired minor, outside the course and
scope of his alleged employment when he was on the high crop
cane tractor and not actively engaged in duties of his alleged
employment, an employment prohibited by law?

Summary Judgment

A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,

show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B). Summary judgment is

favored and shall be construed “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

determination of every action.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A)(2).

2

The mover bears the initial burden of proof to show that no genuine issue of

material fact exists. However, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial,

he need not negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, but he must

point out that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential

to the claim. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(C)(2). Once the mover has met his initial

burden of proof, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce factual support

sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden at trial. Id.

Appellate courts review motions for summary judgments de novo, asking the

same questions the trial court asks to determine whether summary judgment is

appropriate. Champagne v. Ward, 03-3211 (La.1/19/05), 893 So.2d 773. This

inquiry seeks to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists and

whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La.Code Civ.P. art.

966(B). “A fact is material if it potentially insures or precludes recovery, affects a

litigant’s ultimate success, or determines the outcome of a legal dispute.” Hines v.

Garrett, 04-806, p. 1 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 764, 765.

Discussion

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Mr. Guidry first argues that

the evidence does not establish that Quintin was an employee of the Alberts;

therefore, workers’ compensation is not his exclusive remedy with regard to his claim

against them under La.Civ.Code art. 2318. He identifies a number of facts which he

contends support this argument: 1) Quintin had worked at the farm before but had

not been paid; 2) other employees had to complete various documents in connection

with their employment that Quintin did not complete; 3) Quintin was paid with a

check dated the day of his accident which was not deposited for more than a month;

3

4) Quintin did not endorse the check, his mother did; and 5) Quintin was paid more

than at least one other employee who was an adult.

An injured worker’s exclusive remedy for an injury which occurs in the course

and scope of his employment “as against his employer, or any principal or any officer,

director, stockholder, partner, or employee of such employer or principal” is workers’

compensation. La.R.S. 23:1032(A)(1)(a). If Quintin could not be held responsible

in tort for his own actions in causing Mr. Guidry’s injuries because he was

Mr. Guidry’s co-employee, neither could his parents. Therefore, whether Quintin was

or was not employed by the Alberts when Mr. Guidry was injured is a material issue

of fact.

The Trahans contend that Quintin’s status as an employee is undisputed.

Mr. Guidry has identified five facts which he asserts could lead a jury to find that

Quintin was not the Alberts’ employee. Additionally, the workers’ compensation

Employer’s Report of Injury/Illness prepared by Tim Albert describes Mr. Guidry’s

accident as occurring when he was:

Fueling the tractor and another employee (nephew 10-12 years old) was
turning the wheel and his FR leg and hip area was caught in the tractor.

The determination of whether Quintin was the Alberts’ employee when Mr. Guidry

was injured requires an evaluation of the credibility of the testimonial and

documentary evidence on this issue. Credibility determinations are for the jury, not

the trial court. Indep. Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 99-2181 (La. 2/29/00), 755

So.2d 226. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor

of David and Roxanne Trahan and Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.

4

Disposition

Judgment in favor of David and Roxanne Trahan and Louisiana Farm Bureau

Mutual Insurance Company is reversed; all costs of this appeal are assessed against

them.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

5