Geneva Vidrine v. Jason Lafleur

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

07-1551

GENEVA VIDRINE, ET AL.

VERSUS

JASON T. LAFLEUR, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF EVANGELINE, NO. 67,352-B HONORABLE THOMAS F. FUSELIER, DISTRICT JUDGE

OSWALD A. DECUIR JUDGE

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Oswald A. Decuir, and Michael G. Sullivan, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Jimmy L. Dauzat Dauzat, Falgoust, Caviness and Bienvenu 505 S. Court Street Opelousas, LA 70571-1450 (318) 942-5811 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company Jason Lafleur

Charles C. Garrison Caffery, Oubre, Campbell & Garrison P. O. Drawer 12410 New Iberia, LA 70562-2410 (337) 364-1816 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Waven Lafleur Francis Marion Walker, Jr. Plauche’, Smith, & Nieset P. O. Box 1705 Lake Charles, LA 70602 (337) 436-0522 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

Joseph F. Gaar, Jr. Jason M. Welborn J.P. D’Albor Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 2069 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 233-3185 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants: Geneva Vidrine Winston Vidrine

Chuck Randall West West & Vidrine P.O. Box 1019 Ville Platte, LA 70586 (337) 363-2772 Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants: Geneva Vidrine Winston Vidrine

Jean Ann Billeaud Daigle, Jamison & Rayburn, LLC P.O. Box 3667 Lafayette, LA 70502-3667 (337) 234-7000 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Dutton-Lainson Company DECUIR, Judge.

Plaintiff, Geneva Vidrine, was driving her personal vehicle when it was struck

by a utility trailer which came unhitched from a vehicle owned and operated by Jason

Lafleur. At the time of the accident, the trailer was being used to transfer farm

equipment from one set of acreage to another. Vidrine suffered significant injuries

which resulted in her incurring $238,000.00 in past medicals. Her injuries will also

require future surgeries. Vidrine and her husband filed suit against Jason Lafleur and

his farm and automobile liability carrier, Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company.

In addition, they filed suit against Jason’s father, Waven Lafleur, and his farm

liability insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Company, alleging that Jason and

Waven were engaged in a joint venture farming operation.

Waven moved for summary judgment on the grounds that he and Jason were

not engaged in a joint venture and that there was no independent negligence on his

part. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Waven.

Plaintiffs appeal contending the trial court erred in finding that a joint venture

did not exist between Jason and Waven.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A summary judgment shall be rendered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers

to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that

there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(B).” The summary judgment is “designed

to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, except those

disallowed by Article 969,” and summary judgment is favored and shall be construed

to accomplish these ends. La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(A); Hayes v. Autin, 96-287

(La.App. 3 Cir. 12/26/96), 685 So.2d 691, writ denied, 97-0281 (La. 3/14/97), 690

So.2d 41. “In order for a joint venture to exist, the parties thereto must intend to enter into

a joint venture.” Guillory v. Hayes, 576 So.2d 1136, 1142 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1991);

Whittington v. Sowela Technical Inst., 438 So.2d 236 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writs denied,

443 So.2d 591, 592 (La.1983). There must be a contract between the parties

establishing a juridical entity and requiring contribution by all parties of effort or

resources. Latiolais v. BFI of La., Inc., 567 So.2d 1159 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1990).

Moreover, the contributions must be in determined proportions, require joint effort,

and involve mutual risk and sharing of profits. Id.

It is a well-established practice in our state for farmers to help each other plant

and harvest crops. The record reveals that the arrangements Jason and Waven had

were typical of a father and son and neighboring farmers helping one another.

Clearly there was some sharing of equipment and splitting of costs in various aspects

of the farming operations. However, with regard to ultimate risk and profit on the

final product, there was a clear separation between Jason and Waven’s respective

farms. Under these circumstances, we find the elements of a joint venture are not

present, particularly, the intent to enter into a joint venture, the existence of a juridical

entity, or the sharing of mutual risk and profits. Our review of the record reveals no

error in the trial court’s ruling.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs

of these proceedings are taxed to plaintiff-appellants.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3, Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.