 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fleniken v. Entergy Corp.2/16/2001
These consolidated appeals are from a judgment rendered pursuant to a jury verdict after trial on the merits in this personal injury case. On February 27, 1996, Wilburn Morris "Cheyenne" Fleniken, II was injured when he came in contact with an electrical distribution line owned and maintained by Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (Entergy) and located above the property of TMI Enterprises, Inc. (TMI). Mr. Fleniken filed suit against Entergy; TMI; Safeway Transportation, Inc. (Safeway), lessee of the trailer upon which he was standing at the time of the accident; and Zurich American Insurance of Illinois (Zurich), the company that issued general liability and automobile liability insurance policies to Safeway.
Prior to the trial on the merits, Mr. Fleniken settled with Entergy. The jury found TMI and Safeway to be equally at fault for the accident; found neither Entergy nor Mr. Fleniken at fault; and answered various interrogatories related to Safeway's claim to tort immunity based on its relationship with Mr. Fleniken. On November 15, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Mr. Fleniken and against TMI and its insurer, Clarendon National Insurance Company (Clarendon), awarding $1,000,000 in damages; and against TMI awarding $40,391.37 in damages. The total amount of $1,040,391.37 represented one-half of the damages specified in the jury's verdict. The trial court also rendered judgment in favor of Safeway and Zurich dismissing Mr. Fleniken's claims against them and the cross-claims of TMI against them.
From the November 15, 1999 judgment TMI, Clarendon, Mr. Fleniken, and Safeway appealed. Safeway also answered the appeals of Mr. Fleniken and TMI. Intervenor Louisiana Commerce and Trade Association Self Insurers Fund neither appealed nor answered the appeal.
On appeal, TMI assigns three errors relating to the merits:
1. The district court erred in entering judgment exonerating Entergy from all fault in connection with plaintiff's accident ....
2. The district court erred in instructing the jury on strict liability and in finding TMI strictly liable and/or negligent and in assessing TMI with 50 percent fault for plaintiff's accident ....
4. In the alternative, the district court erred in entering judgment on a legally erroneous and conflicting jury verdict, thereby holding Safeway immune from liability to plaintiff in tort and in not allocating more than 50 percent fault to Safeway.
On appeal, Mr. Fleniken assigns the following errors:
1. The trial court erred as a matter of law by allowing Jury Interrogatory #3 [related to the two-contract theory] to be presented to the jury.
2. The trial court erred as a matter of law in its instructions to the jury regarding the issue of the two contract theory. It also erred when it omitted the plaintiff's requested jury instruction on Safeway's burden of proof on statutory employment.
3. The trial court erred as a matter of law by holding that Safeway was an immune tortfeasor; it erred further when it refused to hold TMI liable for Safeway's 50% fault once it found Safeway to be immune under the two contract theory.
4. The trial court erred as a matter of law by holding that the issue of Safeway's waiver of tort immunity could not be presented to the jury.
5. The trial court erred as a matter of law when it ruled that evidence about TMI's lease to Safeway was not to be heard by the jury, thus, the issue of strict liability on the part of Safeway could not go to the jury.
6. The trial court erred as a matter of law by instructing the jury that the answer to an interrogatory filed in pretrial
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Louisiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|