Guillory v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.

436 So. 2d 1280, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 8830
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 28, 1983
DocketNo. 83 CW 0267
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 436 So. 2d 1280 (Guillory v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.) 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
Guillory v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 436 So. 2d 1280, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 8830 (La. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

WATKINS, Judge.

We granted writs in this case because we had reservations concerning the validity of an indemnity agreement binding one’s heirs or legatees to hold harmless the defendant in an action for personal injury should an action subsequently be brought for the injured party’s wrongful death.

John A. Guillory entered into the annexed Receipt, Release and Indemnification Agreement (hereinafter called “Indemnity Agreement”) for personal injury resulting from a helicopter accident. Thereafter, following Guillory’s death, Bonita Guillory, his widow, on her own behalf and on behalf of Guillory’s minor son, David James Guillory, and John R. Guillory, Helena Y. Guillory, and Donna A. Guillory, Guillory’s major children, filed an action against Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. (PHI), American Home Assurance Company (American), and John Duso for Guillory’s allegedly wrongful death. Defendants PHI and American reconvened, on the basis of the annexed indemnity agreement, contending that they were entitled to recover from plaintiffs, by virtue of the indemnity agreement, any sums recovered by plaintiffs from them in the principal action. Plaintiffs as defendants in reconvention then moved for summary judgment dismissing the reconven-tional demand. The trial court denied summary judgment, stating in oral Reasons for Judgment that the indemnity agreement was, in its opinion, fully enforceable and further stating that its ruling really had the effect of a summary judgment against the principal plaintiffs.

As we have stated, we have grave doubts that the indemnity agreement may be enforced against the plaintiffs in a wrongful death action. A wrongful death action is a separate cause of action that arises upon one’s death, and the right to bring such action may not be released by the injured party while he is still alive. Johnson v. Sundhery, 150 So. 299 (La.App. 1st Cir.1933). As the action for wrongful death is a separate cause of action, in our opinion there is considerable doubt that an indemnity agreement entered into by an injured party may serve to bind one’s survivors in a wrongful death action for a cause of action that by the nature of things cannot exist at the time the indemnity agreement is entered into.

However, we shall assume that such an indemnity agreement is enforceable for purposes of discussion. Still, the internal evidence contained within the indemnity agreement itself raises many serious questions concerning the mental competency of Guillory to enter into the agreement. These questions are far too substantial to permit the reconventional demand to be decided one way or the other on motion for summary judgment, but should be resolved by trial on the merits. The indemnity agreement states that Guillory suffered brain injury resulting, inter alia, in brain surgery, damage to personality, memory loss, confusion, outbursts of inappropriate [1282]*1282anger, and disorientation. Appended to the indemnity agreement is an affidavit of Dr. Jay W. Seastrunk, a psychiatrist of New Orleans stating that Guillory is mentally competent to enter into the indemnity agreement. The presence of this affidavit in the record immediately gives rise to the almost inescapable conclusion that the testimony of Dr. Seastrunk must first be heard before any ruling can be made upon the validity or enforceability of the indemnity agreement. Indeed, because of the further questions concerning Guillory’s mental competency raised internally by the indemnity agreement itself, we feel it is inappropriate to rule upon the enforceability of the indemnity agreement without receiving testimony concerning Guillory’s mental competency at the time he entered into that agreement. This testimony should be taken and all other matters, we feel, should be resolved all at one time by a trial on the merits of both the principal and the recon-ventional demands.

We remand the case for trial on the merits concerning all matters, including the mental competency of Mr. Guillory. We set aside the ruling of the trial court that the indemnity agreement is enforceable, and direct that no decision be made on that matter until trial on the merits is held.

REMANDED FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS.

APPENDIX

RECEIPT, RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, on or about July 15, 1976, John A. Guillory was employed by Continental Oil Company and was en route from Continental Oil Company’s facility at Berwick, Louisiana to a fixed platform, located at Block 198, Ship Shoal Area, in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore of the State of Louisiana, aboard a Bell Model 206B helicopter, bearing Aircraft Registration Number N8176J, piloted by Edwin C. Duso, an employee of Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., and owned and operated by Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.; and,

WHEREAS, the said helicopter crashed on take-off and, as a result of said crash, John A. Guillory claims to have sustained personal injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to his head, resulting in a fractured skull, injury to his brain, brain damage as a result of bruising and the removal of neurotic brain tissue, deja vu, jamais vu, loss of ability to have sexual relations, brain surgery, craniotomy, cranioplasty, change in personality, severe headaches, memory loss, confusion, disorientation, decreased frustration tolerance, withdrawal from outside social activities, outbursts of anger inappropriate and unrelated to the environmental stimulation, post-traumatic encephalopathy, temporal lobe epilepsy, and various other physical and mental disorders, resulting in total and permanent disability and making John A. Guillory incapable of gainful employment; and,

WHEREAS, as a result of the aforementioned injuries, John A. Guillory was treated by physicians of his own choosing, including: Dr. Jay W. Seastrunk, Dr. Ricardo Leoni, Dr. Lou Anna Fink, Dr. Charles Edward Moan, Dr. Dietrich Blumer, Dr. Earl Hackett, Dr. Irving Fosberg and Dr. Dorsey Dysart, and various practitioners at the Lafayette General Hospital; and,

WHEREAS, as a result of the aforementioned injuries, John A. Guillory has made claim against Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., Edwin C. Duso and their insurer, American Home Assurance Company, liability for which has been specifically denied and, in furtherance of his demand, instituted suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the matter entitled: “John A. Guillory v. Edward C. Duso [sic],” being Civil Action No. 77-1368 on the docket of the said Court, and in the 24th Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana, Parish of Jefferson, in the matter entitled “John A. Guillory v. Edwin C. Duso, Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., and ABC Insurance Company,” being Proceeding No. 200-987 on the docket of the said Court, seeking damages for his personal injuries as aforementioned, in which proceedings all defendants have filed responsive pleadings denying liability in the premises; and,

[1283]*1283WHEREAS, upon trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in Civil Action No. 77-1368, said action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with the dismissal of said action being appealed to the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, said appeal bearing No. 79-3259 on the docket of said Court; and,

WHEREAS, the parties now wish to amicably compromise, settle, and adjust their differences on the basis hereinafter set forth;

NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

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

Related

White v. Robinson Lumber Co.
929 So. 2d 231 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2006)
Brown v. Drillers, Inc.
630 So. 2d 741 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1994)
Daigle v. Clemco Industries
593 So. 2d 1282 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
436 So. 2d 1280, 1983 La. App. LEXIS 8830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guillory-v-petroleum-helicopters-inc-lactapp-1983.