Opinion
NO. 2016 CW 1438
03-06-2017
LOU BAROUSSE v. HUDSON SERVICES, INC. AND BASIN DRILLING CONSULTANTS, LLC
In Re: Latchco LLC, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2013-12636. BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, THERIOT AND CHUTZ, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. Under our de novo review, we find that there are no material facts genuinely in dispute, and that applicant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(A)(3). "The threshold issue in any negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, and whether a duty is owed is a question of law." Bufkin v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC, 2014-0288 (La. 10/15/14), 171 So.3d 851, 855. Additionally, it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proving negligence on the part of Latchco, Inc. by a preponderance of the evidence. Hanks v. Entergy Corp., 2006-477 (La. 12/18/06), 944 So.2d 564, 578. Latchco, Inc. demonstrated that there are no genuine issues to be tried and pointed to the absence of factual support for plaintiff's claims of negligence against Latchco, Inc., particularly a lack of evidence showing that Latchco, Inc. had a duty to ensure that mud did not ooze up through the wooden mats or that the wooden mats or any action of Latchco, Inc. was the cause-in-fact of plaintiff's accident and injuries. Plaintiff failed to present evidence or factual support sufficient to establish that he would be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial. Accordingly, the trial court's October 24, 2016 judgment denying Latchco, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is reversed, and Latchco, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiff's claims against it is granted. Accordingly, all claims asserted by plaintiff against Latchco, Inc. are hereby dismissed, with prejudice, and each party is to bear his own costs. The remaining issues raised in the writ application are pretermitted.
MRT
WRC
TMH
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT