Winnie Lott v. Ace American Ins. Co.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-469

consolidated with 24-470, 24-471, 24-472, 24-473, 24-474, 24-475,
24-476, 24-477

MARTHA BROWN

VERSUS

ARKITA JOHNSON, ET AL

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 267,149 consolidated with Nos. 269,028; 267,265;
269,040; 269,048; 269,089; 269,293; 269,306; and 269,479
HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********
CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE
**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton
Davis, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Donald Ray Brown
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 12478
Alexandria, Louisiana 71315-2478
Telephone (318) 487-9976
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY/APPELLEE:
Winnie Lott

Julius Willis Grubbs, Jr.
Haik, Minvielle & Grubbs
1101 E. Admiral Doyle Drive #503
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560
Telephone (337) 365-5486
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY/APPELLEE:
Christus St. Francis Cabrini Hospital

Edward S. Johnson
Attorney at Law
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4700
New Orleans, Louisiana 70139-7701
Telephone (504) 528-3001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Thomas Benjamin Moyse Wahlder
Attorney at Law
1740 Jackson Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71306
Telephone (318) 442-9417
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Martha Brown

Joseph B. Stamey
Stamey Law Firm, LLC
PO Drawer 1288
Natchitoches, Louisiana 71458-1288
Telephone (318) 352-4559
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Laurie Ann Simms
Thomas B. Wahlder Firm
1740 Jackson Street
Alexandria, Louisiana 71306
Telephone (318) 442-9417
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Martha Brown

Paul J. Tellarico
Brian Caubarreaux & Associates
2204 McArthur Drive
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
Telephone (318) 442-0900
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY/APPELLEE:
James Ayres
Debra Swearington
Sheterrian Sewell
Derrick Wilson

Lewis Olivier Lauve, Jr.
Bussey & Lauve, LLC
P. O. Drawer 8778
Alexandria, Louisiana 71306
Telephone (318) 449-1937
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY/APPELLEE:
City of Alexandria

Byron O’Neal
O’Neal Law Firm
1847 Sterkx Road
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
Telephone (318) 487-8787
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY/APPELLEE:
Marrison Wright
James Odom
Charles Price
Shirley Cooper Odom
Vickie L. Odom
Bronnie Odom
Shirley Cooper Odom obo Jerry Cooper, deceased

Shawn M. Bordelon
Laborde Earles Law Firm
100 Versailles Blvd., Suite A
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303
Telephone (318) 373-6321
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY/APPELLEE:
Derrick Vales

Joshua J. Dara, Jr.
Gold, Weems, Bruser
P. O. Box 6118
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
Telephone (318) 445-6471
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY/APPELLEE:
City of Alexandria

Stephen J. Hecker
Attorney at Law
631 St Charles Ave, Suite 2F
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Telephone (504) 446-1000
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Martha Brown

Rachel Coronel
Gordon McKernan
4207 Parliament Drive, Suite A
Alexandria, Louisiana 71303
Telephone (318) 443-8888
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY/APPELLEE:
Connie Combs
Hope Carter
Darryl Williams

DAVIS, Judge.

These consolidated actions arise from an automobile accident in December

2019 in Alexandria. Martha Brown, a City of Alexandria employee, was driving a

city bus with several passengers on board when she proceeded through an

intersection on a green light. Arkita Johnson, an employee of Martin Marietta

Materials, Inc., was operating a company pickup truck. The pickup entered the

intersection first, despite being faced with a red light, and the front of the bus collided

with the pickup’s front driver side. The bus proceeded through the intersection and

drifted off the roadway. Brown fell out of the driver’s seat as the bus jumped a curb

and struck a brick wall and then a utility pole.

Brown and other injured plaintiffs, along with the City of Alexandria, sued

Johnson, Martin Marietta, and Ace American Insurance, alleging the negligence of

Johnson and Martin Marietta.1 Some of the plaintiffs also named Brown and the

City as defendants, alleging their negligence. Various third party demands and

interventions were also filed, all centered around the negligence of Johnson and/or

Brown.

The trial court bifurcated trials on the issues of liability and damages. The

City’s liability was tried to the judge, while a jury determined the liability of the

other defendants. The trial court and the jury both found Arkita Johnson 100% at

fault.

Martin Marietta appeals the judgment alleging the trial court: 1) erroneously

granted Brown’s motion to strike Johnson’s expert witnesses, and 2) instructed the

jury with confusing and inconsistent statements of the law. Martin Marietta also

appeals the assignment of all fault against Johnson and the failure to attribute any

1
We refer to Johnson, Martin Marietta, and Ace collectively as “Martin Marietta” in this
opinion.

fault to Brown because of her breach of the heightened standard of care applicable

to a professional driver.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in all respects the judgment from

the trial court.

Motion to Strike Martin Marietta’s Expert Witnesses

Counsel for Brown and the City sent discovery requests to Martin Marietta in

February 2020 asking it to identify witnesses, particularly expert witnesses, they

intended to call at trial. Price’s counsel propounded a similar request in September

2020.

Martin Marietta’s counsel objected to the discovery requests as premature and

said experts would be listed in accordance with the court’s scheduling order. They

never supplemented the response. In October 2020, accident reconstructionist

Jeremy Hoffpauir and biomedical engineer Jeffrey Wheeler attended an inspection

of the bus involved in the accident. On August 30, 2023, Martin Marietta identified

Mr. Hoffpauir and Mr. Wheeler as witnesses to be called at trial. This disclosure was

ninety days before trial and sixty days before the discovery deadline, in accordance

with the court’s scheduling order and deadline to disclose experts.

Brown filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Mr. Hoffpauir and Mr.

Wheeler at trial because Martin Marietta had not identified them in discovery. The

trial court granted the motion. Although Martin Marietta indicated it would seek a

supervisory writ at the hearing, it never did. Martin Marietta made no proffer of the

experts’ testimony either at the hearing or at trial.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1636 allows a party to offer

excluded evidence and subject it to cross-examination. When such a proffer is made,

the trial court shall state its reasons for excluding the evidence on the record. That

decision is reviewable on appeal. The failure to proffer excluded testimony does not

2

prohibit appellate review when the record on appeal clearly shows the content of the

excluded testimony. Williams v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov’t, 11-281 (La.App.

3 Cir. 10/5/11), 72 So.3d 1023, writ denied, 11-2473 (La. 2/3/12), 79 So.3d 1027.

The Williams plaintiff sustained injury when she fell on a public bus. She

offered testimony of a witness about the bus operator’s driving habits and the

defendant’s training procedures. The trial court excluded the testimony as irrelevant,

and the plaintiff’s counsel did not proffer it to the court. Counsel did, however,

inform the court of the topics about which the witness would have testified. On

appeal, this court noted the difference between topics and substance of testimony

and found “the factual statements and/or conclusions to which [the witness] would

have testified are not apparent from the record.” Id. at 1028.

Expert witness testimony is based on “[t]he expert’s scientific, technical, or

other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the

evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” La. Code Evid. art. 702. Expert testimony

must be “based on sufficient facts or data,” use reliable principles and methods in its

analysis, and reliably apply those principles and methods to the facts of the case. Id.

Martin Marietta contends other evidence in the record on appeal establishes

that two impacts occurred, passengers and Brown were thrown from their seats,

Brown was not wearing her seat belt, and other facts established by non-expert

witnesses. The record lacks testimony based on expert knowledge that would aid

the trial judge and jury to determine liability for this accident. It further lacks

testimony showing the application of reliable principles and methods to the facts to

aid the triers of fact.

While the record contains the facts on which the experts would have based

their conclusions, it does not show how those facts would lead to scientific, technical,

or specialized conclusions resulting from the experts’ application of reliable

3

principles and methods to the facts of this case. Indeed, if the record could

sufficiently establish the substance and conclusions of the expert testimony without

that testimony being part of the record, no expert testimony would be necessary.

We need not determine whether the trial court abused its vast discretion by

excluding the expert testimony of Mr. Hoffpauir and Mr. Wheeler. Martin Marietta

did not proffer the excluded testimony or introduce evidence into the record of the

experts’ conclusions that would have aided the jury and the trial judge in determining

liability. This assignment of error lacks merit.

Jury Instructions

Martin Marietta contends the trial court’s jury instructions about the standard

of care to be applied to Brown’s conduct were inconsistent and confusing. Brown

contends Martin Marietta is estopped from challenging those instructions on appeal

because it did not state its objections to them on the record.

A party objecting to an instruction given to the jury must state “specifically

the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.” La.Code Civ.P. art.

1793(C). The objection may be made before the jury retires to deliberate or

immediately after the jury retires. A party who does not make such an objection may

not raise the issue on appeal. Libersat v. J & K Trucking, Inc., 00-192 (La.App. 3

Cir. 10/11/00), 772 So. 2d 173. Objections not placed in the record are insufficient

to preserve the issue for appeal. See Smiciklas v. Groendyke Transport, Inc., 505 So.

2d 775 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 506 So.2d 1231 (La.1987).

Here, the parties and the trial court engaged in a lengthy discussion of the

specific language of each of the jury instructions shortly after trial began. Counsel

for Martin Marietta made comments about the instructions and suggestions for

changes to them but never stated an objection to what would be read to the jury. At

one point in that discussion the trial judge made a passing reference on the record to

4

“when we had our conference on the phone” about jury instructions. The substance

of that conference is not part of the record.

This court cannot assume that someone objected to a jury charge or

determined the substance of an objection made during a conference that is not part

of the record on appeal. The record contains no objection in any proceeding or event

discussing jury instructions other than the conference after trial began. It contains no

indication of Martin Marietta’s objections to jury charges 9-13 of which it now

complains. Thus, this court is unable to consider Martin Marietta’s claim. Id.

Assignment of Fault

Martin Marietta contends the verdicts of the trial court and the jury are

manifestly erroneous. It argues that a judgment carries no weight when the jury

receives incorrect instructions on the law or when the trial court erroneously

excludes evidence. As discussed above, Martin Marietta’s arguments about incorrect

instructions or erroneously excluded evidence are not properly before this court.

Thus, we review the issue of fault allocation under the manifest error standard and

not via de novo review.

To disturb the allocation of fault, this court must find that the record contains

no reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s ruling and that it shows the finding is

clearly wrong. Thibodeaux v. Donnell, 16-570 (La. 1/20/17), 219 So. 3d 274. Our

review of the record reveals no basis on which to revise the allocation of fault.

Both drivers claimed they entered the intersection of Elliott and Foisy Streets

on a green light; evidence and testimony established the bus had the green light as it

traveled west on Elliott Street. The Hathorn Building to the right of the bus at the

intersection was so close to the roadway that it obstructed a view of southbound

traffic on Foisy Street and westbound traffic on Elliott so that neither vehicle could

see the other approaching the intersection.

5

Martin Marietta contends Brown breached the heightened standard of care

required of a professional driver by failing to take adequate precautions as she

approached and entered the intersection. She should have driven defensively and

anticipated the negligence of Johnson as required by the City’s policies and

procedures to mitigate and not worsen potential harm.

Martin Marietta argues a first collision occurred when the bus struck the

pickup in the intersection, and a second collision took place when the bus traveled

on and struck a brick wall and a utility pole. However, the record shows the pickup

was involved in three collisions and the bus was involved in five.

The primary collision caused the bus to drift to the left and the pickup to spin

in a clockwise direction. The pickup’s left rear corner then struck the right side of

the bus near the rear passenger door. The pickup continued to slide until it struck a

utility pole on the north side of Elliott Street and came to rest. After the two collisions

with the pickup, the bus continued to veer slightly to the left, south side of Elliott for

a short distance. It then struck a high, raised concrete curb and went over the curb.

The left corner of the bus struck a large concrete wall, traveled alongside the wall,

and came to rest after it struck a metal utility pole.

Corporal Joshua Daigre, the lead investigating officer on the case, testified

Brown, driving the bus, had the green light when Johnson, driving the pickup,

entered the intersection. Corporal Daigre saw no evidence of pre-impact braking by

the bus or the pickup. Using a time-distance analysis, Corporal Daigre calculated the

bus was traveling below the speed limit at twenty-one to twenty-two miles per hour.

Brown fell to the floor of the bus when it struck the brick wall because she

was not wearing her seat belt. According to Corporal Daigre, wearing a seat belt

generally gives a driver a better opportunity to keep her hands on the steering wheel

and her foot on the brake.

6

Examination of photographs of the accident site with both vehicles at the

points at which they came to rest shows only a short distance between the original

point of impact and the final positions of the vehicles. Witness Hope Carter was a

passenger on the bus. She felt two impacts between the bus and the pickup; the

second impact sent the bus drifting into the wall. Chaos erupted after the first impact,

with “people falling and flying” while the bus was still in motion.

Marrison Wright was also a passenger on the bus. He saw the pickup

increasing speed, “coming faster and faster” as it approached and entered the

intersection. The driver had a phone in her right hand and “was on the phone,

screaming like.”

In contrast, Johnson testified she was holding her cell phone between her legs,

not in her hand, before the accident. She did not use her phone between the time she

left Martin Marietta to the time of the impact. Johnson was able to make a call to her

boyfriend within thirty seconds of the impact despite losing her bearings and the

deployment of all the truck’s airbags. At the time of the accident, Johnson’s driver’s

license was suspended. Nevertheless, she had access and use of two Martin Marietta

vehicles.

Johnson also testified she had the green light. She saw the light turn green

when she turned onto Foisy Street from Madison Street. She passed at least two

streets before reaching the intersection of Foisy and Elliott Streets, and the light was

green the entire time. She testified she had seen a video that was shown to the jury

showing that the bus had the green light, and she had no explanation for that.

Johnson could not see around the Hathorn Building toward the direction from

which the bus came. Johnson’s version of the collision was that she “was side-

swiped by a bus, and swerved around.” She said “the front driver’s side fender tire”

of the bus struck her truck and spun her clockwise. She recalled hitting a pole but

7

not hitting the bus a second time. Johnson did not think she could have done anything

to avoid striking the pole because her truck was spun around from the impact.

Brown testified she stopped the bus at a red light at Sixth Street. The light

turned green, and she “went straight up Elliott.” She saw the light at Elliot and Foisy

turn green; by the time she “got to the middle of the intersection, collision.” She

“didn’t see nothing, until impact.” She did not see Johnson because of the Hathorn

Building. Nothing she could have done would have avoided the accident.

A planned upcoming surgery made the seatbelt uncomfortable for Brown to

always wear. She would “take the belt off and on, off and on.” Brown was not

wearing it at the time of the impact. She knew the City’s Policies and Procedures

required her to wear the seat belt. When she had told her supervisors prior to the

accident that she did not wear her seat belt on all occasions, she was told to wear it,

but her supervisors never did anything beyond that. Brown admitted she should have

been wearing the seat belt but believed that would not have prevented Johnson from

“running through the red light.” Brown was not disciplined because of this accident.

The impact was hard, “like boom. And people just everywhere, screaming,

hollering[.]” The bus went to the left. Brown was “knocked out of [her] seat” and

her hands were on the steering wheel until the bus “jumped the curb.” Brown fell on

top of two other people who had slid from the right side of the bus all the way to the

front.

The trial court found no evidence of any liability on Brown’s part and granted

the City’s motion for involuntary dismissal prior to the conclusion of the jury trial.

Likewise, the jury found Brown free from fault and assessed 100% of the fault to

Johnson.

The City’s “Defensive Driving Tips” recommended a driver hold her right

foot above the brake when approaching an intersection and look left, right, ahead,

8

and left again before entering. Drivers were advised to drive defensively. The City’s

Assistant Transit Manager, Marvin Carmouche, testified, “you know, you can’t think

of all that . . . at the time of . . . an incident or accident. This is something you should

be doing, but it’s not saying that it’s going to actually happen.” The “tips” were just

that, and not City policies or required procedures.

Always wearing seat belts, however, was the City’s policy because they help

drivers stay restrained so they can maintain control of a vehicle in the event of an

accident. Brown was in violation of that policy at the time of the accident.

Brown explained that she could not enter the intersection with her right foot

above the brake pedal because the bus would slow to a stop with another vehicle

behind her. Looking left, right, ahead, and left would not have prevented the crash.

The Hathorn Building to Brown’s right blocked her view of Johnson’s oncoming

pickup. Foisy Street was a one-way thoroughfare only allowing traffic from Brown’s

right. Brown was traveling below the speed limit at the time of the collision.

Brown did not fall from the driver’s seat until the bus went over the curb. She

would have been unable to steer or brake the bus at that point even if she had still

been in her seat. Brown was in the same position in the bus as she would have been

had she been wearing her seat belt until the bus impacted the curb.

Causation is an essential element of a negligence claim. A defendant’s breach

of a duty does not subject her to liability unless that breach caused or contributed to

the resulting harm. Rougeau v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 2 of Beauregard Par., 22-749

(La. App. 3 Cir. 7/26/23), 368 So. 3d 1196, writ denied, 23-1157 (La. 11/15/23), 373

So. 3d 76. Thus, even if Brown did breach her heightened duty of care, that breach

must still have been a cause of the collision. Breach alone does not create harm

without causation.

9

This accident happened because Johnson ran the red light. Martin Marietta

failed to prove that plaintiffs’ injuries would have been less but for Brown’s failure

to exercise a heightened degree of care.

Accordingly, we affirm the verdicts of the trial court and the jury.

AFFIRMED.

10

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-470

consolidated with CA 24-469, CA 24-471, CA 24-472, CA 24-473, CA 24-474,
CA 24-475, CA 24-476, and CA 24-477

WINNIE LOTT

VERSUS

ACE AMERICAN INS. CO., ET AL

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 267,265, consolidated with Nos. 267,149; 269,028;
269,040; 269,048; 269,089; 269,293; 269,306; and 269,479
HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton Davis,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Donald R. Brown
Attorney at Law
P. O. Drawer 12478
Alexandria, LA 71315-2478
(318) 487-9976
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Winnie Lott

Edward S. Johnson
Attorney at Law
701 Poydras Street, Ste 4700
New Orleans, LA 70139-7701
(504) 528-3001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Charles David Elliott
Charles Elliott & Associates
720 Murray Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 704-6511
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
City of Alexandria

DAVIS, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Martha Brown v. Arkita Johnson, et al., 24-469

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/25), ___ So.3d ___, handed down this day, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

2

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-471

consolidated with CA 24-469, CA 24-470, CA 24-472, CA 24-473, CA 24-474,
CA 24-475, CA 24-476, and CA 24-477

MARRISON WRIGHT

VERSUS

MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 269,028, consolidated with Nos. 267,149; 267,265;
269,040; 269,048; 269,089; 269,293; 269,306; and 269,479
HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton Davis,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher L. Williams
Johnson, Yacoubian & Paysse
701 Poydras Street Suite 4700
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 528-3001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Charles David Elliott
Charles Elliott & Associates
720 Murray Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 704-6511
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
City of Alexandria
Martha Brown

Byron O’Neal
O’Neal Law Firm
1847 Sterkx Road
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 487-8787
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Marrison Wright

DAVIS, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Martha Brown v. Arkita Johnson, et al., 24-469

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/25), ___ So.3d ___, handed down this day, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-472

consolidated with CA 24-469 & CA 24-470, CA 24-471, CA 24-473, CA 24-
474, CA 24-475, CA 24-476, and CA 24-477

CHARLES PRICE

VERSUS

MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 269,040, consolidated with Nos. 267,149; 269,028;
267,265; 269,048; 269,089; 269,293; 269,306; and 269,479
HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton
Davis, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher L. Williams
Johnson, Yacoubian & Paysse
701 Poydras Street Suite 4700
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 528-3001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Byron O’Neal
O’Neal Law Firm
1847 Sterkx Road
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 487-8787
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Charles Price

Charles David Elliott
Charles Elliott & Associates
720 Murray Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 704-6511
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
City of Alexandria
Martha Brown

DAVIS, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Martha Brown v. Arkita Johnson, et al., 24-469

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/25), ___ So.3d ___, handed down this day, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

2

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-473

consolidated with CA 24-469 & CA 24-470, CA 24-471, CA 24-472, CA 24-
474, CA 24-475, CA 24-476, CA 24-477

DERRICK WILSON

VERSUS

MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 269,048, consolidated with Nos. 267,149; 267,265;
269,028; 269,040; 269,089; 269,293; 269,306; and 269,479
HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton Davis,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher L. Williams
Johnson, Yacoubian & Paysse
701 Poydras Street Suite 4700
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 528-3001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Paul J. Tellarico
Brian Caubarreaux & Associates
2204 McArthur Drive
Alexandria, LA 71303
(318) 442-0900
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Derrick Wilson

Julius Willis Grubbs, Jr.
Haik, Minvielle & Grubbs
1017 E. Dale Street
New Iberia, La 70562
(337) 365-5486
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Christus Health Central Louisiana

DAVIS, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Martha Brown v. Arkita Johnson, et al., 24-469

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/25), ___ So.3d ___, handed down this day, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

2

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-474

consolidated with CA 24-469 & CA 24-470, CA 24-471, CA 24-472, CA 24-
473, CA 24-475, CA 24-476, and CA 24-477

CHRISTOPHER SWEARINGTON

VERSUS

ARKITA JOHNSON, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 269,089, consolidated with Nos. 267,149; 267,265;
269,028; 269,040; 269,048; 269,293; 269,306; and 269,479
HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton Davis,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher L. Williams
Johnson, Yacoubian & Paysse
701 Poydras Street Suite 4700
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 528-3001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Paul J. Tellarico
Brian Caubarreaux & Associates
2204 McArthur Drive
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 442-0900
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Christopher Swearington

Eugene A. Ledet, Jr.
Brian Caubarreaux & Assoc.
2000 Kaliste Saloom Rd., #102
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 202-0900
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Christopher Swearington

DAVIS, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Martha Brown v. Arkita Johnson, et al., 24-469

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/25), ___ So.3d ___, handed down this day, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

2

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-475

consolidated with CA 24-469 & CA 24-470, CA 24-471, CA 24-472, CA 24-
473, CA 24-474, CA 24-476, CA 24-477

CARL HOLLIER

VERSUS

ACE AMERICAN INS. CO., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 269,293, consolidated with Nos. 267,149; 267,265;
269,028; 269,040; 269,048; 269,089; 269,306; and 269,479
HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton Davis,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher L. Williams
Johnson, Yacoubian & Paysse
701 Poydras Street Suite 4700
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 528-3001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Scott F. Higgins
LaBorde Earles
P. O. Box 80098
Lafayette, LA 70598
(337) 261-2617
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Carl Hollier

Charles David Elliott
Charles Elliott & Associates
720 Murray Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 704-6511
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
City of Alexandria
Martha Brown

DAVIS, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Martha Brown v. Arkita Johnson, et al., 24-469

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/25), ___ So.3d ___, handed down this day, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-476

consolidated with CA 24-469 & CA 24-470, CA 24-471, CA 24-472, CA 24-
473, CA 24-474, CA 24-475, CA 24-477

SHIRLEY COOPER ODOM, ET AL

VERSUS

MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 269,306, consolidated with Nos. 267,149; 267,265;
269,028; 269,040; 269,048; 269,089; 269,293; and 269,479
HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton Davis,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher L. Williams
Johnson, Yacoubian & Paysse
701 Poydras Street Suite 4700
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 528-3001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Charles David Elliott
Charles Elliott & Associates
720 Murray Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 704-6511
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
City of Alexandria
Martha Brown

Byron O’Neal
O’Neal Law Firm
1847 Sterkx Road
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 487-9750
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Shirley Cooper Odom, et al

DAVIS, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Martha Brown v. Arkita Johnson, et al., 24-469

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/25), ___ So.3d ___, handed down this day, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

2

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-477

consolidated with CA 24-469 & CA 24-470, CA 24-471, CA 24-472, CA 24-
473, CA 24-474, CA 24-475, CA 24-476

PAMELA WILKINSON

VERSUS

ACE AMERICAN INS. CO., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 269,479, consolidated with Nos. 267,149; 267,265;
269,028; 269,040; 269,048; 269,089; 269,293; and 269,306
HONORABLE MONIQUE FREEMAN RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton Davis,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Christopher L. Williams
Johnson, Yacoubian & Paysse
701 Poydras Street Suite 4700
New Orleans, LA 70139
(504) 528-3001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Ace American Ins. Co.
Arkita Johnson
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

Charles David Elliott
Charles Elliott & Associates
720 Murray Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 704-6511
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
City of Alexandria
Martha Brown

Shawn M. Bordelon
Laborde Earles Law Firm
100 Versailles Blvd., Suite A
Alexandria, LA 71303
(318) 625-6397
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Pamela Wilkinson

Julius Willis Grubbs, Jr.
Haik, Minvielle & Grubbs
1017 E. Dale Street
New Iberia, La 70562
(337) 365-5486
COUNSEL FOR THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Christus Health Central Louisiana

DAVIS, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in Martha Brown v. Arkita Johnson, et al., 24-469

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/21/25), ___ So.3d ___, handed down this day, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.