Opinion
No. 2023-C-01346
01-10-2024
Gerald Wayne GLASER, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Charles Raymond Glaser, Sr., Trudy Glaser, and Robert Glaser v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Danna J. Glaser, Individually and as the Executor of the Estate of Charles Raymond Glaser, Sr., Barbara G. Lacombe, and Charles R. Glaser, Jr. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, et al.
Hughes, J., would grant. Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons. Genovese, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Crichton, J. Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.
Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Number(s) 49803-C c/w 50012-A, Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2022 CA 0534 c/w 2022 CA 0535.
1Writ application denied.
Hughes, J., would grant.
Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Crichton, J.
Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.
1I would grant and docket this application to consider to court of appeal’s assessment of 100% fault to the defendants. The defendants’ application raises the question of the meaning "legal cause of the damages" in Code of Civil Procedure article 1812(C). Specifically, defendants argue that encompassed in the definition of "damages" is not only causation of an accident, but also exacerbation of the damages sustained in an accident. Here, defendants conceded they were solely responsible for the collision itself, but argue that the decedent’s excessive speeding exacerbated his injuries. As a result, according to the defendants’ argument, the decedent’s own negligent actions caused him worse injuries ("damages") than he would have sustained had he been driving the speed limit, and he should properly 2have been assessed some amount of fault. In my view, this question is of critical importance to the application of Louisiana’s substantive tort law insofar it takes into account the totality of the conduct at issue, and I would grant the application to consider it.
For purposes of clarity, I note that my vote is to deny the related applications 23-C-1300 and 23-C-1314.