Lionel Jones and Willie Wilson v. Maryland Casualty Company, Zurich American Insurance Company, Powell's Cable Company and Karen A. Jones

Opinion

LIONEL JONES AND WILLIE * NO. 2018-CA-0552 WILSON * COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS * FOURTH CIRCUIT MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, ZURICH * STATE OF LOUISIANA AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, POWELL'S * CABLE COMPANY AND KARREN A. JONES * *******

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

COURTNEY GILLARD NO. 2018-CA-0553

VERSUS

FRANK POWELL, JR., POWELL CABLE SERVICE, LLC, CABLE MAN, INC., JOHN DOE AND JEFFERSON PARISH TRANSIT CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

TERRY R. WHITE NO. 2018-CA-0554

VERSUS

POWELL CABLE SERVICE, LLC, KAREN A. JONES, MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, LIONEL JONES, JEFFERSON PARISH TRANSIT AND/OR VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC., AND OLD REPUBLIC CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

EVERETT HARRIS NO. 2018-CA-0555

VERSUS

MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, POWELL'S CABLE SERVICE, LLC, KAREN A. JONES, AND COX COMMUNICATIONS LOUISIANA, LLC

RML LEDET, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS

Although I agree with the result the majority reaches, I write separately to

address the trial court’s examination of Frank Powell—owner of Powell’s Cable

Service, LLC—regarding whether the defendant, Karren Jones, was in the course

and scope of her employment on the date of the accident. Had this been a jury

trial, I would find the trial court’s question—which elicited a legal conclusion on an ultimate issue of liability from an unrepresented lay witness—would have

resulted in reversible error. As the majority observes, the potential danger of the

trial court’s question was lessened because this was a bench trial and, thus, there

was no jury to confuse or mislead. Moreover, by its failure to lodge a

contemporaneous objection to the trial court’s question, Powell’s Cable failed to

preserve the issue for review. See Alexander v. La. State Bd. of Private

Investigator Examiners, 15-0537, p. 40 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/17/17), 211 So.3d 544,

569 (holding that a party failed to preserve its right to raise on appeal the trial

court’s ex parte communication with jury by failing to object at trial). For these

reasons, I respectfully concur.