Champagne v. Celotex Corp.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Champagne v. Celotex Corp.

588 So. 2d 391, 1991 La. App. LEXIS 2597, 1991 WL 203880

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 8, 1991

DocketNo. W91-433

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 588 So. 2d 391 (Champagne v. Celotex Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Champagne v. Celotex Corp., 588 So. 2d 391, 1991 La. App. LEXIS 2597, 1991 WL 203880 (La. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAM A. CULPEPPER, Judge Pro Tem.

This writ application was filed by defendant-insurer requesting us to decide whether pre-comparative fault principles should be applied during the trial in which plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of exposure to asbestos during their employment. The trial court’s ruling dated April 25, 1991 found that comparative fault principles applied to questions of contribution among the defendants. This same issue is presented in Outher Cole, et al. v. Celotex Corporation, et at, 588 So.2d 376 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1991). Both suits were filed in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court. This court stayed the trial proceedings, consolidated the instant writ application with the appeal in Cole, supra, and granted both sides additional time to file briefs.

For the reasons stated in Cole, supra, in which a separate decision is rendered by us this date, we find that pre-comparative fault principles apply, that each liable defendant is a joint tortfeasor and constitutes a different virile share, and that a finding of contributory negligence and/or assumption of the risk on the part of plaintiff bars recovery against plaintiffs employer or co-employees. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling dated April 25, 1991 is hereby reversed and set aside.

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY. STAY ORDER RECALLED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILLIAM A. CULPEPPER, Judge Pro Tem.

This writ application was filed by defendant-insurer requesting us to decide whether pre-comparative fault principles should be applied during the trial in which plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of exposure to asbestos during their employment. The trial court’s ruling dated April 25, 1991 found that comparative fault principles applied to questions of contribution among the defendants. This same issue is presented in Outher Cole, et al. v. Celotex Corporation, et at, 588 So.2d 376 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1991). Both suits were filed in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court. This court stayed the trial proceedings, consolidated the instant writ application with the appeal in Cole, supra, and granted both sides additional time to file briefs.

For the reasons stated in Cole, supra, in which a separate decision is rendered by us this date, we find that pre-comparative fault principles apply, that each liable defendant is a joint tortfeasor and constitutes a different virile share, and that a finding of contributory negligence and/or assumption of the risk on the part of plaintiff bars recovery against plaintiffs employer or co-employees. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling dated April 25, 1991 is hereby reversed and set aside.

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY. STAY ORDER RECALLED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

588 So. 2d 391, 1991 La. App. LEXIS 2597, 1991 WL 203880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/champagne-v-celotex-corp-lactapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack