United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
L. HAYES JUDGE.
A. DOUGHTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
filed by Defendants Mabe Trucking Co., Inc.
(“Mabe”), National Interstate Insurance Company
(“NIIC”), and Richard Agee (“Agee”)
[Doc. No. 109]. Defendants move the Court for partial summary
judgment (1) that Louisiana law does not allow Plaintiff
David Franco (“Franco”) to recover exemplary
damages; (2) that the doctrine of negligence per se
does not apply in Louisiana; and (3) that Franco is solely
and wholly liable for this accident under the last clear
chance doctrine. Franco has filed an opposition to the motion
[Doc. No. 114]. Defendants have filed a reply to the
opposition [Doc. No. 120].
following reasons, the Defendants' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
case arises out of a motor vehicle accident. On or about
November 24, 2015, Franco's vehicle was involved in a
collision with an 18-wheel truck owned by Mabe and being
driven by Agee on Interstate 20 in Louisiana shortly after
crossing the border between Texas and Louisiana. On November
22, 2016, Franco filed suit against Mabe in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, alleging diversity of citizenship jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). On July 6, 2017, the suit was
transferred to this Court. On May 3, 2018, Franco filed a
Supplemental and Amended Complaint adding Agee and NIIC as
alleges that the accident was caused by the negligent
operation of the truck by Agee in pulling onto Interstate 20
directly in front of him. Franco further alleges that Agee
was an employee of Mabe at the time of the accident,
rendering Mabe liable for the negligence of Agee under the
doctrine of respondeat superior. The Court granted
Defendants' prior motion for summary judgment and
dismissed with prejudice Franco's direct negligence
claims against Mabe for allowing Agee to operate the vehicle,
failing to train him, and failing to maintain the vehicle
[Doc. Nos. 101, 102]. Due to the principle of vicarious
liability, Mabe remains a defendant in this matter.
parties have fully briefed the pending motion and the Court
is now prepared to rule.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
judgment ''shall [be] grant[ed] . . . if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.'' Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is
''material'' if proof of its existence or
nonexistence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under
applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a
material fact is ''genuine'' if the evidence
is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict
for the nonmoving party. Id.
moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v.
Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994). The
nonmoving party must show more than ''some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.''
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In evaluating the
evidence tendered by the parties, the Court must accept the
evidence of the nonmovant as credible and draw all
justifiable inferences in its favor. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255.
Exemplary, or Punitive, Damages
alleged in his Complaint that he is entitled to exemplary, or
punitive, damages. Defendants move for summary judgment
dismissing Franco's claim for exemplary damages, on the
basis that Louisiana law does ...