Wanda Batiste v. Farm Bureau

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

07-1586

WANDA BATISTE

VERSUS

FARM BUREAU, ET AL.

**************
APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, DOCKET NO. 05-69152
HONORABLE KEITH R.J. COMEAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**************
SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE
**************

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Oswald A. Decuir, and Michael G. Sullivan,
Judges.
REVERSED.

Thomas J. DeJean
DeJean & Leger, L.L.C.
806 South Main Street
Opelousas, Louisiana 70570
(337) 948-9066
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Wanda Batiste

Fred Schroeder
Craig E. Frosch
Usry, Weeks & Matthews
1615 Poydras Street, Suite 1250
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
(504) 592-4600
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
St. Martin Parish Sheriff Ronny Theriot

Charles C. Garrison
Caffery, Oubre, Campbell & Garrison, L.L.P.
Post Office Drawer 12410
209 West Main Street, Suite 200
New Iberia, Louisiana 70562-2410
(337) 364-1816
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Jeffery C. Faulk
Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

Edward P. Landry
Landry, Watkins, Repaske & Breaux
Post Office Drawer 12040
New Iberia, Louisiana 70562-2040
(337) 364-7626
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Delhomme’s Funeral Home, Inc.

COOKS, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case arises out of a vehicular accident involving Wanda Batiste and

Jeffery Faulk. On April 7, 2004, Ms. Batiste was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle

driven by her daughter-in-law, Juanita Miller. The two ladies were traveling along

Martin Luther King Drive in St. Martinville, Louisiana, approaching the traffic light

at the intersection with La. Hwy. 96. Since the light was green for Ms. Miller, she

proceeded through the intersection. As she entered the intersection, she was struck

by a vehicle driven by Jeffery Faulk, a participant in a funeral procession on his way

to the St. Martinville Cemetery. Mr. Faulk admitted in his deposition that the traffic

light was red when he proceeded through the intersection. That fact is not at issue.

The funeral originated in Lafayette from Delhomme Funeral Home. The funeral

home director stated the sheriff’s department was called into service to handle the

procession to the cemetery. Major Ivy Perioux of the St. Martin Parish Sheriff

Department was the escort vehicle. Major Perioux testified he met the procession at

the St. Martin Parish line and remained at the head of the procession as it traveled

down La. Hwy. 96 toward the cemetery. Major Perioux stated when he approached

the intersection of La. Hwy. 96 and Martin Luther King Drive the light was green.

He made no effort to secure the intersection for the individuals traveling behind him

in the funeral procession. He stated he did not learn of the accident until he arrived

at the cemetery several minutes later.

Ms. Batiste filed suit against Jeffery Faulk and his insurer, Farm Bureau. She

later amended the petition naming the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Department and

Delhomme Funeral Home. The sheriff’s department filed a motion for summary

judgment which was granted by the trial court. Ms. Batiste filed this appeal. For the

1

reasons assigned below, we reverse the judgment of the trial court granting summary

judgment in favor of the sheriff’s department and remand for trial on the merits.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo under the same criteria

that govern the trial court’s determination of whether a summary judgment is

appropriate. Schroeder v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., 591 So.2d 342

(La.1991). The summary judgment procedure is designed to secure the just, speedy,

and inexpensive determination of actions. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A)(2). A motion

for summary judgment is properly granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers

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

there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B). A fact is material when its existence

or nonexistence is essential to the plaintiff’s cause of action. Davis v. M & E Food

Mart, Inc. No. 2, 02-585 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/30/02), 829 So.2d 1194. Any doubt as

to a dispute regarding a material issue of fact must be resolved against granting the

summary judgment motion and in favor of trial on the merits. Id.

Duty of the Sheriff’s Department

Ms. Batiste contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in

favor of the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff contends it does not

owe a duty to participants of a funeral procession to ensure a safe passage to the

cemetery. The liability of the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Department is analyzed

under the duty-risk theory of recovery. Hardy v. Bowie, 98-2821 (La. 9/8/99), 744

So.2d 606. Under the duty-risk analysis, the plaintiff must prove that the conduct in

question was a cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, the defendant owed a duty of care

to the plaintiff, the duty was breached by defendant, and the risk of harm was within

2

the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached. Id.; Siripanyo v.Allstate

Indemnity Co., 03-559 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/23/03), 862 So.2d 1254.

The duty of the sheriff’s department when called into service to provide an

escort for a funeral procession was articulated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in

LeJeune v. Allstate Insurance Co., 365 So.2d 471 (La.1978), as follows:

Deputy Smith’s duty was to do what was necessary to ensure that
the funeral cortege could pass safely through the intersection, despite the
automatic signals that designated Highway 10 the road the cortege had
to cross as the favored highway. The customary method of ensuring safe
passage across such a favored highway is to secure the intersection by
blocking the favored road with a police vehicle whose flashing red light
would be a signal to approaching traffic that the automatic signal was
being superseded.

Id. at 476.

In Siripanyo, this court determined that summary judgment in favor of a

sheriff’s deputy who had not yet arrived to escort the funeral procession was

inappropriate, stating “if a police department agrees to provide its services as an

escort it must do so in a non-negligent fashion.” Siripanyo, 862 So.2d at 1259-60.

A factual situation similar to the one presented here arose in Alleman v.

Romero, 06-132 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/06), 931 So.2d 538. In Alleman, the plaintiffs

were part of a funeral procession and proceeded through an unsecured intersection

on a red light in order to remain in the procession. The plaintiffs’ vehicle was struck

by another vehicle. The sheriff argued at the hearing that there is a “common

misconception that participation in a funeral procession gives such participants

greater rights than that of other drivers” and the sheriff’s department is under no

obligation to secure each and every intersection on the route to the cemetery. Id. at

539. This court acknowledged the “consistent dichotomy between traffic regulations

and the custom of funeral processions” but held “the possible negligence of the

escorting officers in this case is a factual question not properly disposed of via

3

summary judgment. Id. at 540.

In the present case, Major Perioux argued he was under no obligation to secure

the intersections because “it’s Louisiana law, everyone has to stop [for a red light].”

He stated the department’s only obligation is as an “escort vehicle” at the front of the

procession and the department has no obligation to secure the intersections for those

individuals at the back of the line. He stated in deposition testimony:

Q Okay. You indicated that your personal practice is when you
approach an intersection in the lead vehicle in the sheriff’s
department vehicle and the light controlling your direction of
travel is red, that you come to a stop at that intersection.

A. On most. Yeah, I would say I come to a stop or slow down. Or
I start slowing down about a mile - - about maybe a block before
if the light’s visible, where, you know, I’ll allow the light to turn
green again, by going real slow.

Usually when you get in town, the funeral procession’s usually
not traveling more than 20 miles an hour. So if I’m looking - - if
I’m able to see the light, you know, on Highway 96, you can.
Q. What do you do if the light hasn’t turned green at the time that
you are close to it?

A. I’ll stop.

Q. And for how long will you stop?

A. I’ll stop until it turns green, I proceed. And in Louisiana law, if
the light turns red again, they have to stop, too.

Q. All right. So you are not interested that procession make it to a
funeral or to the cemetery or to the funeral home, or the church,
in one group?

A. No. A lot of time - - a lot of times, especially if it’s coming from
out of town, you have people scattered at least a mile long
sometimes, depending on what speed they’re traveling, you know,
or what they incurred when you’re coming from out of town. You
don’t know.

We agree with our earlier holding in Siripanyo, 862 So.2d 1254, that if the

sheriff’s department undertakes the responsibility of escorting a funeral procession,

they must do so in a non-negligent manner. The question of whether Major Perioux

4

fulfilled his responsibility to Ms. Batiste is a question of fact not properly disposed

of by summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court

granting summary judgment in favor of the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Department

and remand for trial on the merits.

DECREE

Based on the foregoing review of the record, we reverse the decision of the trial

court and remand for trial on the merits. All costs of this appeal are assessed against

the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Department.

REVERSED.

5