Opinion
22-145 22-143 22-144
10-12-2022
IRIS ANN BARRON v. PEYTON DAVISON, AND STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CHRISTOPHER MADISON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILDREN, LAURYN MADISON AND AUTUMN HAYWARD v. IRIS ANN BARRON, PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, PEYTON DAVISON, AND STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT PRISCILLA PETE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, CHRISTIAN PETE v. IRIS ANN BARRON, PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, PEYTON DAVISON, AND STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Wm. David Coffey Assistant Attorney General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division Counsel for Defendants/Appellants: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development Peyton Davison Stephen J. Hecker Hecker Law Firm Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Iris Ann Barron Sebastian Hoffpauir Assistant Attorney General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division Counsel for Defendants/Appellants: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development Peyton Davison Donna M. Johnson Casler, Bordelon & Gelder Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Iris Ann Barron Progressive Security Insurance Company Jeannie C. Prudhomme Assistant Attorney General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division Counsel for Defendants/Appellants: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development Peyton Davison Thomas B. Wahlder Attorney at Law 1740 Jackson Street Alexandria, LA Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees: Priscilla Pete, o/b/o Christian Pete Christopher Madison, Individually and o/b/o Lauryn Madison and Autumn Hayward
Appeal from the Ninth Judicial District Court Parish of Rapides, Numbers 267,441, 267, 151, and 267-165 Honorable Monique F. Rauls, District Judge
Wm. David Coffey Assistant Attorney General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division Counsel for Defendants/Appellants: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development Peyton Davison
Stephen J. Hecker Hecker Law Firm Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee: Iris Ann Barron
Sebastian Hoffpauir Assistant Attorney General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division Counsel for Defendants/Appellants: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development Peyton Davison
Donna M. Johnson Casler, Bordelon & Gelder Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Iris Ann Barron Progressive Security Insurance Company
Jeannie C. Prudhomme Assistant Attorney General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division Counsel for Defendants/Appellants: State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development Peyton Davison
Thomas B. Wahlder Attorney at Law 1740 Jackson Street Alexandria, LA Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees: Priscilla Pete, o/b/o Christian Pete Christopher Madison, Individually and o/b/o Lauryn Madison and Autumn Hayward
Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, D. Kent Savoie, and Sharon Darville Wilson, Judges.
SHARON DARVILLE WILSON, JUDGE
For the reasons expressed in Pete v. Barron, 22-143 (La.App. 3 Cir. ___/___/___), ___ So.3d ___, we find that a reasonable factfinder could not reach any other conclusion than that Iris Barron (Barron) was free from fault in causing this accident. Barron and Progressive Security Insurance Company (Progressive) met their burden of proving that no genuine issues of material fact exist regarding her lack of fault, and Peyton Davison (Davison) and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) failed to produce any evidence to controvert this showing. The trial court's grant of the motion for summary judgment in favor of Barron and Progressive is hereby affirmed. All costs of this appeal, which total $2,730.02, are assessed to Davison and DOTD.
AFFIRMED.
SAVOIE, J. dissents and assigns written reasons.
I would reverse the trial court's summary judgment rendered in favor of Ms. Barron and Progressive for the same reasons expressed in my dissent in Pete v. Barron, 22-143 (La.App. 3 Cir. ___/___/___), ___ So.3d ___.