Russell Maricle, Et Ux. v. Axis Medical & Fitness Equipment, LLC

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-1063

RUSSELL MARICLE and
MARY FRANCIS MARICLE

VERSUS

AXIS MEDICAL & FITNESS EQUIPMENT, LLC, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 247,765
HONORABLE GREGORY BEARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PHYLLIS M. KEATY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John D. Saunders, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

REVERSED.

Charles D. Elliott
Vilar, Elliott & Green, L.L.C.
Post Office Box 12730
Alexandria, Louisiana 71315-2730
(318) 442-9533
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants:
Russell Maricle
Mary Francis Maricle

Andrew P. Texada
Stafford, Stewart & Potter
Post Office Box 1711
Alexandria, Louisiana 71309
(318) 487-4910
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
Axis Medical & Fitness Equipment, LLC

McDonald Provosty
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
New Orelans, Louisiana 70130
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
Dalton Medical Corporation
Dalton Instrument Corporation

KEATY, Judge.

Plaintiffs/Appellants, Russell Maricle and Mary Francis Maricle, appeal the

trial court’s judgment granting a cross motion for summary judgment in favor of

Defendant/Appellee, Axis Medical & Fitness Equipment, LLC. For the following

reasons, the trial court’s judgment is reversed.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This products liability matter arose after Mr. Maricle sustained injuries from

a defective wheelchair that he was using during his recovery for injuries sustained

in an automobile collision. The wheelchair was provided by Axis who delivered it

to him on January 8, 2013. On April 27, 2013, Mrs. Maricle was pushing him in

his wheelchair up a ramp when the back of his wheelchair ripped, causing

Mr. Maricle to fall backwards, hit his head on the pavement, and reinjure his neck.

As a result, Plaintiffs filed suit on June 26, 2013, which was amended and

supplemented, against Axis, Dalton Medical Corporation, and Dalton Instrument

Corporation (hereinafter the two Dalton entities will be referred to as “Dalton”),

alleging that the wheelchair was defective in design and/or manufacture by Dalton

and that Axis “knew or should have known of the defects in the [w]heelchair,

because it should have inspected the [w]heelchair before delivery[.]” Plaintiffs

also alleged that Axis was “in the business of renting medical equipment.” On

May 9, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their second supplemental and amending petition for

damages and asserted a redhibitory claim against Axis and Dalton. On that same

day, Axis filed a cross claim against Dalton, seeking tort indemnification for

redhibitory and/or manufacturing defects. Also on that same day, Axis filed a

motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims, alleging that

it was not negligent under La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1, which governs a custodian’s

liability for damages caused by defective things. In opposition, Plaintiffs argued

that Axis was strictly liable as a lessor pursuant to La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97,

which govern a lessor’s warranties against vices or defects. The foregoing

pleadings were timely filed in accordance with the trial court’s May 9, 2014

deadline for amendment of pleadings.

After the deadline passed, Plaintiffs and Dalton participated in a mediation,

which resulted in them settling their products liability claim against Dalton while

reserving their rights against Axis. Axis did not participate in the mediation, and

on June 5, 2014, it filed a supplemental cross claim against Dalton, asserting a

products liability claim and alleging comparative fault. Plaintiffs and Dalton each

filed motions to strike Axis’s supplemental cross claim as untimely in light of the

May 9, 2014 deadline. Dalton also filed an exception of prescription and argued

that Axis’s redhibition claims asserted in its original cross claim had prescribed.

After the June 30, 2014 hearing on the pending motions, the trial court orally

denied Axis’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Plaintiffs’ pleadings

contained “sufficient allegations” that made it “clear that the wheelchair was leased

to Mr. Maricle[]” and that “Axis has understood from the beginning that that’s the

basis of the claim here.” This was reduced to writing in the trial court’s

September 16, 2014 judgment. Approximately one month prior, on August 13,

2014, the trial court signed another written judgment granting Plaintiffs’ and

Dalton’s motions to strike and dismissing Axis’s cross claim and amended cross

claim. The trial court also granted Dalton’s exception of prescription.

Axis appealed the August 13, 2014 judgment prior to the scheduled trial on

the merits. Axis also filed a motion to stay the judgment pending an appeal on

September 2, 2014, which Plaintiffs opposed. Following a hearing on September 8,

2

2014, the trial court denied Axis’s motion to stay the judgment pending an appeal

and bifurcated the trial between liability and damages, with the trial on the

damages to begin on September 10, 2014. This was memorialized in the trial

court’s written Order signed on September 10, 2014. According to the

December 31, 2014 written reasons for judgment and its January 27, 2015 written

judgment on damages, the trial court fixed Plaintiffs’ general damages at $150,000

plus medical special damages.

In the meantime, Axis’s pending appeal was heard by another panel of this

court, and on May 6, 2015, it affirmed the trial court’s August 13, 2014 judgment.

Maricle v. Axis Med. & Fitness Equip., LLC, 14-1249 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/6/15)

(unpublished opinion). This court held that “[t]he only remaining issue concerns

the Maricles’ claims against Axis for its alleged negligent failure to inspect.” Id. at

4.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on May 20,

2015, alleging that Axis was strictly liable as a lessor under La.Civ.Code arts.

2696-97. Axis filed a cross motion for summary judgment on June 11, 2015,

arguing that the only allegations against Axis arose from its alleged negligent

failure to inspect the wheelchair prior to delivery. Axis asserted that it was not

liable since there were no visible defects in the wheelchair prior to or at the time of

its delivery to Mr. Maricle. After the July 13, 2015 hearing on the pending

motions, the trial court granted Axis’s cross motion for summary judgment and

dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, which was reduced to writing in the

August 26, 2015 judgment. In its written reasons for judgment rendered on July 23,

2015, the trial court referenced our previous holding in Maricle, 14-1249, and

stated that the only remaining issue was whether Axis negligently inspected the

3

wheelchair. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s granting of Axis’s cross motion for

summary judgment.

On appeal, Plaintiffs assert the following four assignments of error:

1. The trial court committed legal error when it granted summary
judgment in favor of Axis Medical & Fitness Equipment, LLC
based on Louisiana Civil Code [A]rticle 2317.1, as that Civil
Code article does not apply in this case.

2. The trial court committed legal error when it denied Russell and
Mary Maricle’s motion for summary judgment, as the Court
was presented with proof that Axis leased a defective
wheelchair to Russell Maricle, and that Russell Maricle was
injured due to the defect, as provided in Louisiana Civil Code
[A]rticles 2696[,] et seq.

3. The trial court erred, and this Court erred, in holding that the
only issue for trial was active negligence on the part of Axis, as
that issue was not properly before the Third Circuit Court of
Appeal in the prior appeal in this case, and it[,] therefor[,] had
no value as “law of the case.”

4. The trial court erred in casting plaintiffs with all of Axis’[s]
court costs, as a previous Judgment of the trial court dated
August 13, 2014 cast Axis with certain court costs, and that
Judgment was appealed and affirmed and is[,] therefore[,] final.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In Whitbeck v. Champagne, 14-245, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/1/14), 149 So.3d

372, 379, this court stated the following:

Summary judgments are reviewed de novo, applying the same
standard to the matter as that applied by the trial court. Smith v. Our
Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512 (La.7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730.
Summary judgment is favored by law and provides a vehicle by which
the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of an action may be
achieved. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A)(2). The trial court is required
to render summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions, together with the affidavits, if any,
admitted for purposes of the motion for summary judgment, 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)(2).

We will, therefore, use the de novo standard of review in the instant matter.

4

DISCUSSION

I. First Assignment of Error

In their first assignment of error, Plaintiffs contend that the trial court legally

erred by granting Axis’s cross motion for summary judgment based on negligence

under La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1, which provides:

The owner or custodian of a thing is answerable for damage
occasioned by its ruin, vice, or defect, only upon a showing that he
knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the
ruin, vice, or defect which caused the damage, that the damage could
have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he
failed to exercise such reasonable care. Nothing in this Article shall
preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur in an appropriate case.

Plaintiffs argue that the trial court should have used La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97 and

determined that Axis was strictly liabile as the wheelchair’s lessor. A lessor’s

warranty against vices or defects is codified at La.Civ.Code art. 2696 and provides:

The lessor warrants the lessee that the thing is suitable for the
purpose for which it was leased and that it is free of vices or defects
that prevent its use for that purpose.

This warranty also extends to vices or defects that arise after the
delivery of the thing and are not attributable to the fault of the lessee.

This warranty “also encompasses vices or defects that are not known to the lessor.

However, if the lessee knows of such vices or defects and fails to notify the lessor,

the lessee’s recovery for breach of warranty may be reduced accordingly.”

La.Civ.Code art. 2697.

With respect to the instant matter, the trial court referenced the Maricle, 14-

1249, opinion in its July 23, 2015 written reasons for judgment and stated that “the

only remaining issue before this court is whether or not Axis negligently inspected

the wheelchair.” The trial court noted that “Mr. Maricle has alleged that he was

injured by a defective thing, a wheelchair, owned or leased by Axis. As such, La.

5

C.C. art. 2317.1 is the applicable substantive law[.]” We find that the trial court’s

reliance on La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1 was erroneous as it was not the law of the case,

which argument was advanced by Axis’s counsel at the hearing on the cross

motions for summary judgment and is discussed in more detail in the following

section.

Additionally, liability under La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1 requires proof that

“‘the thing was in the defendant’s custody and control[.]’” Davis v. Am. Legion

Hosp., 06-608, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/06), 941 So.2d 712, 714 (quoting

Roberson v. Lafayette Oilman’s Sporting Clays Shoot, Inc., 05-1285, p. 5 (La.App.

3 Cir. 4/12/06), 928 So.2d 703, 705-06). “Custody and control is largely a

question of fact, not law[.]” Hesse v. Champ Serv. Line, 05-1565, p. 3 (La.App. 3

Cir. 6/7/06), 933 So.2d 247, 250, writs denied, 06-2156, 06-2176 (La. 11/22/06),

942 So.2d 555, 556. “‘[C]ustody’ or ‘garde’ of a thing cannot lie in both an owner

and a lessee simultaneously.” Pamplin v. Bossier Parish Cmty. Coll., 38,533, p. 7

(La.App. 2 Cir. 7/14/04), 878 So.2d 889, 893, writ denied, 04-2310 (La. 1/14/05),

889 So.2d 266 (quoting Guillory v. Foster, 93-996 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 634

So.2d 1372, 1375). In this case, the facts show that Axis did not have garde of the

wheelchair after delivering it to Mr. Maricle on January 8, 2013. The trial court,

therefore, erred by using La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1 in its analysis.

Moreover, Axis never cited La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1 as a basis for liability in

its cross motion for summary judgment. The use of La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1 was

also rejected by the trial court at the June 30, 2014 hearing, wherein it denied

Axis’s original motion for summary judgment by stating the following with respect

to Plaintiffs’ pleadings:

6

I don’t know that the pleadings are as artfully drafted as his pleadings
normally are or that he would have liked. But I think that there is
sufficient allegations that it’s clear that the wheelchair was leased to
Mr. Maricle. I think pleadings are clear enough – it’s clear to me that
Axis has understood from the beginning that that’s the basis of the
claim here. And so for those reasons I’m going to deny your motion
for summary judgment.

Since this matter involves the granting of a motion for summary judgment,

we will perform a de novo review. In this case, Plaintiffs attempted to show the

existence of a lease by attaching the following exhibits in support of their motion

for summary judgment and in opposition of Axis’s cross motion for summary

judgment:

 The transcript from the June 30, 2014 hearing wherein Axis’s
counsel stated that “Axis leased the wheelchair to the Maricles”
and “it was technically a lease at this time[;]”

 The Acceptance of Service and Policies and the Medicare
Capped Rental Notification executed between Mr. Maricle’s
daughter on his behalf and Axis which shows that they chose
the “Rental Option” “For Capped Rental Items,” which includes
equipment such as wheelchairs;

 A billing statement from Axis to Mr. Maricle showing the
monthly rental price for the wheelchair;

 The Sales Agreement executed between Dalton, as the
manufacturer of the wheelchair, and Axis which shows that
Dalton’s warranty “does not cover” commercial use of its
products;

 The transcript of the September 8, 2014 hearing on Axis’s
motion to stay pending an appeal wherein Axis’s counsel stated
that the matter involved a wheelchair that was “rented [to]
plaintiffs[]” and that “If that wheelchair was defective, then my
client could be held liable as lessor of the wheelchair.”

 Axis’s memorandum in support of its motion for summary
judgment which was filed on May 20, 2015 and stated that Axis
“delivered a wheelchair” to Plaintiffs’ home and based on Mr.
Maricle’s height, “Axis rented a 20-inch lightweight wheelchair
which was rated for 250 pounds.”

7

The foregoing shows that the trial court ignored the evidence indicating that

Axis leased the wheelchair to Plaintiffs. The trial court should have used

La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97 in its analysis, which is discussed in more detail below.

Accordingly, the trial court committed legal error by granting Axis’s cross motion

for summary judgment based on negligence under La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1, and its

judgment is reversed in this regard.

II. Second Assignment of Error

In their second assignment of error, Plaintiffs contend that the trial court

legally erred in denying their motion for summary judgment and granting Axis’s

cross motion for summary judgment since it had proof that Axis leased a defective

wheelchair to Mr. Maricle and that he was injured due to the defect as provided in

La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97. In support, Plaintiffs contend that Louisiana’s lease

articles apply to moveables, which encompasses a lessor’s warranty against hidden

defects. Plaintiffs contend that they are not required to prove the cause of the

defect in light of Marien v. General Insurance Co. of America, 02-545 (La.App. 3

Cir. 12/11/02), 836 So.2d 239.

In Marien, the plaintiff pilot was injured in an airplane crash and brought

suit for damages against the defendant, Barham Bros., Inc., the plane’s owner and

lessor. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred in finding it liable

without proof of a defect. We noted that the trial court found that a defect existed,

according to its reasons for judgment, because “it accepted as fact that the control

stick jammed causing the accident[,]” which led to the trial court’s finding that

“Barham Bros., as lessor of the aircraft, was strictly liable for the defective

condition of the aircraft.” Id. at 243. The defendant further argued that the trial

court erred by holding that the plaintiff did not need to prove the defect’s cause.

8

We indicated that it was undisputed that the plaintiff leased the plane from the

defendant such that the trial court correctly applied La.Civ.Code art. 2695, which

stated:

The lessor guarantees the lessee against all the vices and defects
of the thing, which may prevent its being used even in case it should
appear he knew nothing of the existence of such vices and defects, at
the time the lease was made, and even if they have arisen since,
provided they do not arise from the fault of the lessee; and if any loss
should result to the lessee from the vices and defects, the lessor shall
be bound to indemnify him for the same.

Id. at 243. We noted that “‘[t]his provision applies to the lease of both immovables

and movables.’” Id. (quoting Walnut Equip. Leasing Co., Inc. v. Moreno, 26,004

(La.App. 2 Cir. 9/21/94), 643 So.2d 327, 331). We stated that in order to recover

under La.Civ.Code art. 2695, “it is not necessary to prove the cause of the defect[]”

and “[a] lessee must prove only the existence of the defect.” Id. We held that in

light of the trial testimony and circumstantial evidence, it was “sufficient to show

that it is more probable than not that a defect in the plane existed and caused the

accident.” Id. at 245.

Even though Marien references La.Civ.Code art. 2695, which was revised in

2005, its principles are codified in La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97. Shubert v. Tonti

Dev. Corp., 09-348 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/29/09), 30 So.3d 977, writ denied, 10-241

(La. 4/9/10), 31 So.3d 393. We, therefore, use Marien as guidance in this case. In

that regard, this case is similar to Marien in that the evidence and testimony show

that Mr. Maricle leased the wheelchair from Axis. Marien, therefore, warrants

application of La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97 in this matter, and we must determine

whether Plaintiffs proved the existence of a defect by direct and/or circumstantial

evidence.

9

In addition to the evidence discussed in the section above, Plaintiffs

attempted to prove the existence of a defect by attaching the June 30, 2014 hearing

transcript wherein Axis’s counsel stated that approximately three months following

its delivery of the wheelchair to Mr. Maricle, “the back of the wheelchair ripped

out and Mr. Maricle fell and re-injured himself[.]” Therein, Axis’s counsel

admitted that there was “no evidence that Axis knew or could have known about

whatever defect was in the fabric of the wheelchair upon delivery.” Plaintiffs

attached the deposition testimony of Dalton’s corporate representative, Jim Lein,

who testified that he was unsure as to how the wheelchair came apart. Plaintiffs

also attached Mr. Maricle’s deposition testimony wherein he indicated that the

wheelchair back came apart during its ordinary use causing him to fall onto the

pavement and sustain injuries. In its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs

pointed to Axis’s First Supplemental and Amending Cross Claim wherein it

confessed that the wheelchair it rented was defective as follows:

2.

[Axis] affirmatively shows that the wheelchair manufactured by
Dalton Medical and/or Dalton Instrument was unreasonably
dangerous in construction or composition in that at the time the
product left Dalton’s control, the product deviated in a material way
from Dalton’s specifications or performance standards for the
wheelchair which were specified for use by persons weighing less
than 220 pounds.

3.

[Axis] affirmatively shows that the wheelchair in question was
unreasonably dangerous because of inadequate warning that the back
of the wheelchair was susceptible to wearing and that the tip bars in
the wheelchair should be used at all times was not provided by Dalton
Medical and/or Dalton Instrument.

10

4.

[Axis] affirmatively shows that the wheelchair in question was
unreasonably dangerous because it did not conform to the expressed
warranty of Dalton in that it failed after less than six months use.

Plaintiffs attached Axis’s Designation of Record for Appeal requesting that

the following portions of the record be designated: the transcripts of all hearings

prior to September 9, 2014, and all exhibits and pleadings filed prior to

September 9, 2014. In its opposition to Axis’s cross motion for summary

judgment, Plaintiffs attached Axis’s discovery responses wherein it stated that Jeff

Johnson and Devereaux MaNeaux “[w]ill testify about the wheelchair at issue,

rental of the wheelchair to plaintiff.”

Accordingly, the trial court legally erred in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment and granting Axis’s cross motion for summary judgment since

it had proof that Axis leased a defective wheelchair to Mr. Maricle and that he was

injured due to the defect as provided in La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97. The trial

court’s judgment is, therefore, reversed in this regard.

III. Third Assignment of Error

In their third assignment of error, Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred

and this court erred in its previous decision in Maricle, 14-1249, in holding that the

only issue was for Axis’s active negligence. That issue, according to Plaintiffs,

was not properly before this court in Maricle because the trial court’s

September 16, 2014 denial of Axis’s original motion for summary judgment was

not appealed and had no value as the “law of the case.”

The “law of the the case” doctrine provides that:

[A]n appellate court will generally refuse to reconsider its own rulings
of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case. The law of the case
doctrine is discretionary. Reconsideration of a prior ruling is

11

warranted when, in light of a subsequent trial record, it is apparent
that the determination was patently erroneous and produced unjust
results.

Hernandez v. Louisiana Workers’ Comp. Corp., 15-118, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir.

6/3/15), 166 So.3d 456, 459 (citations omitted). Since the doctrine is discretionary,

a prior appellate court ruling “does not preclude reconsideration of an issue on

appeal, nor does it prevent the appellate court from reaching a different

conclusion.” Id. at 458. The doctrine also recognizes “the binding force of trial

court rulings during later stages of the trial[.]” Kaleel v. Div. Transp., 00-803, p. 1

(La.App. 3 Cir. 8/23/00), 769 So.2d 110, 111, writ denied, 00-2976 (La. 12/15/00),

777 So.2d 1232 (quoting Petition of Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, 278

So.2d 81, 83 (La.1973)).

Axis argues in opposition that the law of the case doctrine is applicable and

points to this court’s holding in Maricle, 14-1249, p. 3 (emphasis added), wherein

we held:

The Maricles did not assert claims against Axis for products
liability but for failure to properly inspect the wheelchair before
renting it to them. These facts, as alleged, do not show the mere
constructive or derivative fault of Axis but rather, assert that Axis was
actively negligent in its actions. This recovery is not sought on a
technical, constructive, or vicarious theory, and accordingly, Axis
could not be cast in judgment for mere technical or passive fault and
would not be entitled to indemnity from Dalton. See Threlkeld v.
Haskins Law Firm, 922 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1991). This is bolstered by
the settlement and dismissal of the Maricles’ claims against Dalton,
whereby the products liability claims with regard to the wheelchair
have been resolved. The only remaining issue concerns the
Maricles’ claims against Axis for its alleged negligent failure to
inspect. See Hesse v. Champ Serv. Line, 02-284 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/2/02), 828 So.2d 687. Since Axis was not entitled to indemnity for
its own alleged negligence, we cannot find error in the trial court’s
determination that the original cross-claim sounded in redhibition only.

Axis argues that the foregoing holding means that the trial court found that

Plaintiffs’ petition failed to assert a strict liability claim under La.Civ.Code arts.

12

2696-97, meaning that La.Civ.Code art. 2317.1 was the applicable law of the case

which the trial court in this matter was required to follow. We disagree with Axis

as to the applicability of the law of the case doctrine for the following reasons.

Pending motions were heard in this matter on June 30, 2014, including

Axis’s original motion for summary judgment which it filed on May 9, 2014

wherein it denied any liability for its alleged negligence pursuant to La.Civ.Code

art. 2317.1. In opposition, Plaintiffs argued that Axis was strictly liable as a lessor

pursuant to La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97. At the June 30, 2014 hearing, the trial

court orally denied Axis’s original motion for summary judgment, stating that

Plaintiffs’ pleadings contained “sufficient allegations” that made it “clear that the

wheelchair was leased to Mr. Maricle[]” and that “Axis has understood from the

beginning that that’s the basis of the claim here.” This was reduced to writing in

the trial court’s September 16, 2014 judgment. Prior to that written judgment, the

trial court rendered a different written judgment on August 13, 2014, regarding

other motions that were also argued at the June 30, 2014 hearing. Therein, the trial

court granted Plaintiffs’ and Dalton’s motions to strike, dismissed Axis’s cross

claim and amended cross claim, and granted Dalton’s exception of prescription.

Axis then filed its motion to appeal the August 13, 2014 judgment and sought

designation of all pleadings, exhibits, and transcripts of hearings “in this matter

prior to September 9, 2014[]” for appeal. The September 16, 2014 judgment

denying Axis’s original motion for summary judgment, therefore, was not the

subject of Axis’s appeal in Maricle, 14-1249.

The only issues on appeal in our previous case as asserted by Axis in its

assignments of error were as follows: “the trial court erred in holding that [Axis’s]

original cross-claims prescribed[] and that the trial court erred in striking [Axis’s]

13

supplemental cross-claims as untimely.” Maricle, 14-1249, p. 2. Axis, however,

never specified as an assignment of error that its motion for summary judgment

had been denied. Its specified errors only dealt with Axis’s claims against Dalton.

Moreover, Axis never asked this court to limit Plaintiffs’ remedies based on the

allegations in the pleadings. Axis’s reliance on the Maricle, 14-1249, holding with

respect to Plaintiffs’ claims, therefore, is inapplicable considering Uniform

Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3, which provides, in pertinent part: “The Courts

of Appeal will review only issues which were submitted to the trial court and

which are contained in specifications or assignments of error, unless the interest of

justice clearly requires otherwise.” Since a lessor’s liability pursuant to

La.Civ.Code arts. 2696-97 was not presented as an issue in an assignment of error

in Maricle, 14-1249, the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable in this matter.

Accordingly, the trial court erred in finding that the only remaining issue

was for Axis’s active negligence, and its judgment is reversed in this regard.

IV. Fourth Assignment of Error

In their fourth assignment of error, Plaintiffs contend that the trial court

erred in casting them with all of Axis’s court costs, as a previous judgment dated

August 13, 2014, cast Axis with certain court costs, and that judgment was

appealed, affirmed, and final. Plaintiffs argue that should we rule in Axis’s favor,

it should only recover costs incurred following the August 13, 2014 judgment

regarding Axis’s motion for summary judgment.

We decline to address this assignment of error in light of our reversal.

DECREE

The trial court’s granting of a cross motion for summary judgment in favor

of Defendant/Appellee, Axis Medical & Fitness Equipment, LLC, is reversed. All

14

costs associated with this appeal shall be assessed to Defendant/Appellee, Axis

Medical & Fitness Equipment, LLC.

REVERSED.

15