Opinion
NO. 2020 CW 1183
04-01-2021
ZANZABAR COSSE v. LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.; LAFARGE AGGREGATES SOUTHEAST, INC.; CAJUN INDUSTRIES, LLC; CAJUN CONSTRUCTORS, LLC; JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.; AND MONSANTO COMPANY
In Re: Monsanto Company, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 659503. BEFORE: THERIOT, WOLFE, AND HESTER, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. The trial court's October 19, 2020 judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by relator, Monsanto Company, is reversed. The owner of a thing under construction does not have custody for purposes of liability under La. Civ. Code art. 2317. An exception to that rule occurs when the owner exercises operational control over the contractor's methods of operation or gives express or implied authorization to unsafe practices. Young v. City of Plaquemine, 2002-0280 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 898, 899, writ denied, 2002-1601 (La. 9/30/02), 825 So.2d 1196. Monsanto pointed out the absence of factual support for the plaintiff's premises liability claim, i.e., that it exercised operational control over the construction site and, specifically, the temporary roadway, where the plaintiff's accident occurred. The plaintiff failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on this element of his burden of proof. See La. Civ. Code arts. 2317 and 2317.1; La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A)(3) and (D)(1). See also Young, 818 So.2d at 899 (The custody determination includes consideration of whether the owner bears such a relationship as to have the right of direction and control over the thing.); Klein v. Cisco-Eagle, Inc., 37,398 (La. App. 2d Cir. 9/24/03), 855 So.2d 844, 850 (Operational control exists only if the principal has direct supervision over the step-by-step process of accomplishing the work such that the contractor is not entirely free to do the work in his own way.) Therefore, Monsanto Company's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiff's claims against Monsanto are dismissed with prejudice.
MRT
EW
CHH
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT