Corey Scott v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Corporation, Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Curtis Johnson, Coco-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Greenwich Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
This text of Corey Scott v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Corporation, Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Curtis Johnson, Coco-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Greenwich Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Corey Scott v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Corporation, Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Curtis Johnson, Coco-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Greenwich Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) 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.
Opinion
COREY SCOTT * NO. 2020-CA-0136
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL
ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC, * FOURTH CIRCUIT ENTERGY CORPORATION, ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, * STATE OF LOUISIANA INC., CURTIS JOHNSON, COCO-COLA * REFRESHMENTS USA, INC., GREENWICH INSURANCE * COMPANY, STATE FARM ******* MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
RLB BELSOME, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS
I concur in the majority’s opinion to affirm the trial court’s judgment
granting a directed verdict in favor of Cox. Legal sufficiency of the evidence
challenges, such as those presented by motions for directed verdict, are subject to
the de novo standard of review that is used for all legal issues. Hall v. Folger
Coffee Co., 03-1734, p.10 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So. 2d 90, 99. When a trial court
considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposed to the
motion for directed verdict, and finds that it points so strongly and overwhelmingly
in favor of the moving party that reasonable minds could not arrive at a contrary
verdict on that issue, the directed verdict should be granted. Pennington v.
Ochsner Clinic Found., 17-0647, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/25/18), 245 So.3d 58, 62,
reh'g denied (5/08/18), writ denied, 18-1034 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So.3d 791, and
writ denied, 2018-1020 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So.3d 801.
In its cross-claim, Entergy alleges that Cox is liable for damages caused by
its defective line, pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2317.1.1 As discussed by the majority,
1 The owner or custodian of a thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its ruin, vice, or defect, only upon a showing that he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the ruin, vice, or defect which caused the damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care. Nothing in this Article shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case. 1 there was no evidence presented at trial concerning Cox’s knowledge of the
condition of the line. Given that Entergy did not establish all of the elements set
forth under La. C.C. art 2317.1,particularly the knowledge element, reasonable
persons could not reach a contrary verdict. As such, the trial court did not err in
granting a directed verdict in favor of Cox. For these reasons, I concur in the
majority’s opinion to affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Corey Scott v. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Corporation, Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Curtis Johnson, Coco-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Greenwich Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corey-scott-v-entergy-louisiana-llc-entergy-corporation-entergy-new-lactapp-2020.