Peterson v. Enterprise Leasing Co.

Full title: ROBERT PETERSON, ET AL v. ENTERPRISE LEASING CO., ET AL

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Jan 4, 2005

Civil Action No: 03-1858, Section: "J" (5) (E.D. La. Jan. 4, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No: 03-1858, Section: "J" (5).

January 4, 2005

CARL BARBIER, District Judge

Before the Court is the Rule 59 Motion for New Trial filed by plaintiffs. Rec. Doc. 72. Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company ("Enterprise") opposes the motion.

In their motion, plaintiffs urge the Court to reconsider its prior ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Enterprise, based on its contention that the Court did not properly apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Plaintiffs apparently acknowledge that given the absence of any evidence of negligence by Enterprise, the application of res ipsa loquitur is the only means by which they may satisfactorily establish Enterprise's negligence.

In making this argument, plaintiffs quote the following language from the Louisiana Third Circuit's opinion in National Uniion Fire Insurance Company of Louisiana v. Harrington:

Generally, three criteria must be present for the doctrine [of res ipsa loquitur] to be applicable: 1) the facts must indicate that the plaintiff's injuries would not have occurred in the absence of negligence; 2) the plaintiff must establish that the defendant's negligence falls within the scope of duty to the plaintiff; and 3) the evidence should sufficiently exclude inference of the plaintiff's own responsibility or the responsibility of others besides the defendant in causing the accident.

854 So. 2d 880 (La.App. 3^rd Cir. 2003).

As noted by Enterprise in its opposition, plaintiffs cannot satisfy prongs one and three of this test. As the Court observed in its prior Order and Reasons, the facts do not indicate that negligence was a prerequisite for the injuries sustained by Mr. Peterson, and further, it is entirely possible that if there was any negligence involved, it could have been the negligence of Mr. Peterson or some other party (for instance, he could have tracked a foreign substance on to the shuttle that was spilled somewhere else by someone else). The Court does not by any means intend to suggest that this occurred, but merely to note that the specific and exacting requirements for application of res ipsa loquitur are not present here, because it is entirely possible that the injury occurred through no fault of Enterprise.

Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion for New Trial, Rec. Doc. 72, should be and is hereby DENIED.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *