Vernon St. Amant v. Canadian National Railroad, Illinois Central Railroad Company, City of Gonzales, Parish of Ascension and Louisiana State Department of Transportation ( 2023 )

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2023 CA 0528
VERNON ST. AMANT
VERSUS
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILROAD, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY,
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY AND DEF INSURANCE
COMPANY
4\ Judgment rendered: NOV 0 9 2023
JEW On Appeal from the
Twenty -Third Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Ascension
State of Louisiana
No. 130, 704 Division " D"
The Honorable Steven Tureau, Judge Presiding
Hilary G. Gaudin Attorneys for Appellant
Elizabeth M. Gaudin Vernon St. Amant
Gretna, Louisiana
Bradley R. Belsome Attorneys for Appellee
Crystal E. Domreis Illinois Central Railroad Company
Brodie G. Glenn
Lance V. Licciardi, Jr.
New Orleans, Louisiana
Jeff Landry Attorneys for Appellee
Attorney General State of Louisiana, through the
Barbara Pilat Department of Transportation
Assistant Attorney General and Development
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
and
Jeannie C. Prudhomme
Assistant Attorney General
Lafayette, Louisiana
BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ.
HOLDRIDGE, J.
Plaintiff, Vernon St. Amant, appeals from a trial court judgment granting a
motion for summary judgment in favor of a defendant, the State of Louisiana,
through the Department of Transportation and Development ( DOTD), and
dismissing his claims against it with prejudice. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 5, 2021, Mr. St. Amant filed suit against Canadian National
Railroad, Illinois Central Railroad Company, and their unnamed insurers, seeking
to recover damages arising from an incident that allegedly occurred at a railroad
crossing on February 14, 2020. Mr. St. Amant alleged that, on that date, he was
driving a 2001 Mack dump truck over a railroad crossing on Louisiana Highway
22 in Darrow, Louisiana, when a piece of concrete " came up off the [ railroad]
crossing and struck [ the] [ undercarriage] of the dump truck," injuring him and
damaging the truck. On February 11, 2021, Mr. St. Amant filed a motion to amend
his petition to add DOTD as a defendant, which the trial court granted.' Mr. St.
Amant alleged that the railroad companies were liable for their negligence in
failing to properly maintain the roadway, to clear debris from the railroad crossing,
to warn of the hazard they knew or should have known about, and for failing to
exercise reasonable care to keep the roadway safe and free of any hazardous
2
conditions pursuant to La. R. S. 9: 2800. 6. He also alleged that the railroad
companies were negligent in allowing a defective and unreasonable dangerous
Mr. St. Amant named the State of Louisiana as a defendant, but the proper name for the
defendant is State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development. Mr.
St. Amant also added the City of Gonzales and the Parish of Ascension as defendants, but the
City of Gonzales was dismissed from the suit with prejudice, and the Parish of Ascension was
dismissed from the suit without prejudice.
2 Mr. St. Amant cited La. R.S. 9: 2800.6 as the basis of the railroad companies' duty to keep the
roadway safe and free from hazardous conditions, but that statute applies to a merchant' s duty to
keep aisles, passageways, and floors in a reasonably safe condition.
2
condition to exist on the roadway. In his amending petition, Mr. St. Amant alleged
that DOTD " may have also been responsible for the condition and/ or maintenance
of the railroad crossing."
DOTD answered Mr. St. Amant' s petition and then on September 30, 2022,
filed a motion for summary judgment. In its summary judgment motion, DOTD
contended that it was not liable for the incident because it did not own, control, or
maintain the railroad tracks or the asphalt in between the tracks at the location of
the incident.
Mr. St. Amant responded to the summary judgment motion, contending that
La. R.S. 48: 382, 48: 386( A), 45: 323, and 48: 21 impose a duty upon DOTD in some
instances to bear the primary responsibility for maintaining the road at a railroad
crossing.
The trial court held a hearing on January 23, 2023, and granted the summary
judgment motion, stating that DOTD established that it did not maintain, own,
design, or construct the railroad crossing.' The trial court then signed a judgment
on February 9, 2023, granting DOTD' s motion for summary judgment and
dismissing the claims brought against it by Mr. St. Amant with prejudice.
Mr. St. Amant appeals from the judgment, contending that the trial court
erred.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Appellate courts review the granting of a summary judgment de novo using
the same criteria governing the trial court' s consideration of whether summary
judgment is appropriate, i.e., whether there is any genuine issue of material fact
and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See La. C. C. P.
The hearing on the summary judgment motion was continued once from November 28, 2022,
until January 23, 2023, on Mr. St. Amant' s motion.
3
art. 966( A)(3); Lucas v. Maison Insurance Co., 2021- 1401 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
12122122), 358 So. 3d 76, 83- 84.
The summary judgment procedure is expressly favored in the law and is
designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of non-domestic
civil actions. See La. C. C. P. art. 966( A)(2). The purpose of a motion for summary
judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether
there is a genuine need for trial. Hines v. Garrett, 2004- 0806 ( La. 6125104), 876
So. 2d 764, 769 ( per curiam). After an adequate opportunity for discovery,
summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting
documents 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. C.C. P. art. 966( A)(3). The
only documents that may be filed in support of or in opposition to the motion are
pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, certified
medical records, written stipulations, and admissions. La. C. C.P. art. 966( A)(4). 4
On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden of proof rests with the
mover. See La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 1); Lucas, 358 So. 3d at 84. If, however, the
mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the
court on the motion, the mover' s burden on the motion does not require that all
essential elements of the adverse party' s claim, action, or defense be negated.
Instead, after meeting its initial burden of showing that there are no genuine issues
of material fact, the mover may point out to the court that there is an absence of
factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party' s claim,
action, or defense. Thereafter, summary judgment shall be granted unless the
a The motion for summary judgment at issue in this appeal was filed and decided under La.
C. C. P. art. 966 prior to its amendment by 2023 La. Acts No. 317, § 1, and 2023 La. Acts No.
368, § 1, which became effective on August 1, 2023.
91
adverse party can produce factual evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. See La. C. C. P. art. 966( D)( 1); Lucas, 358 So. 3d at 84.
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court' s role is not to
evaluate the weight of the evidence or to make a credibility determination, but
instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Collins v.
Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System, Inc., 2019- 0577 ( La.
App. 1 Cir. 2/ 21/ 20), 298 So. 3d 191, 194, writ denied, 2020- 00480 ( La. 6122120),
297 So. 3d 773. A fact is material if it potentially ensures or precludes recovery,
affects a litigant' s ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute.
Hines, 876 So. 2d at 765. A genuine issue is one as to which reasonable persons
could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, summary
judgment is appropriate. Hines, 876 So. 2d at 765. Any doubt as to a dispute
regarding a material issue of fact must be resolved against granting the motion and
in favor of a trial on the merits. Collins, 298 So. 3d at 195.
TORT LIABILITY LAW
In determining whether the trial court erred in granting DOTD' s summary
judgment motion, this court must consider whether DOTD is liable pursuant to La.
R.S. 9: 2800, which sets forth the requirements for a public entity' s liability for a
defective thing within its custody or care. See Broussard v. State ex rel. Office
of State Buildings, 2012- 1238 ( La. 4/ 5/ 13), 113 So. 3d 175, 181. Under La. R.S.
9: 2800, in order to prove a public entity is liable for damages caused by a thing,
the plaintiff must establish: ( 1) the public entity had custody or ownership of the
defective thing; ( 2) the defect created an unreasonable risk of harm; ( 3) the public
entity had actual or constructive notice of the defect; ( 4) the public entity failed to
take corrective action within a reasonable time; and ( 5) causation. Chambers v.
5
Village of Moreauville, 2011- 898 ( La. 1124112), 85 So. 3d 593, 597. Failure to
meet any one of these statutory requirements will defeat a claim against the public
entity. Himes v. State through Department of Transportation and Office of
Engineering, 2021- 0138 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 614121), 327 So. 3d 536, 539.
In determining whether a thing is in one' s custody, courts should consider:
1) whether the person bears such a relationship as to have the right of direction
and control over the thing; and ( 2) what, if any, kind of benefit the person derives
from the thing. See Rodrigue v. Baton Rouge River Center, 2015- 0703 ( La.
App. 1 Cir. 1119115), 2015 WL 6951410, * 3 ( unpublished).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
DOTD' S summary judgment motion was supported by an excerpt from Mr.
St. Amant' s deposition and the affidavit of William Shrewsberry, a licensed civil
engineer employed by DOTD. Mr. St. Amant testified that when he crossed the
railroad tracks on Louisiana Highway 22, " the concrete popped up under the
truck." Mr. St. Amant stated that he pulled over to see what had happened, and " a
big concrete was in the middle of the street." When asked if the piece of roadway
involved was from " in between the actual metal tracks," Mr. St. Amant replied
affirmatively. He added, " In between -- in between the train -- the railroad, they
got ... concrete pillars right there, and there was one in the middle of the railroad
tracks."
Mr. Shrewsberry stated in his affidavit that he was the designated
representative of DOTD for purposes of DOTD' s participation in the
administration of certain projects performed for purposes of the Federal Railroad
Safety Programs ( Highway/Rail Safety Program Projects) authorized by the
provisions of 23 U. S. C. A. § 130 et seq. In his capacity as the designated
representative, Mr. Shrewsberry said that he had personal knowledge of and was
0
familiar with the Illinois Central Railroad Company crossing at Louisiana
Highway 22 in Darrow, Louisiana. According to Mr. Shrewsberry, DOTD owned
and maintained Louisiana Highway 22, including the asphalt paved approaches to
the railroad crossing, but it did not own or maintain the crossing. Mr. Shrewsberry
stated, " Specifically, DOTD maintains the paved traffic lanes of [ Louisiana
Highway] 22 to a point approximately four (4) feet from the rail on each side of the
crossing...." He affirmed that DOTD did not participate in " or play any role
whatsoever in" the design or construction of the crossing area. Mr. Shrewsberry
added that DOTD had not " participated in or played any role whatsoever in the
construction, installation, or maintenance of railroad warning lights, visible alerts,
or audible alerts at the crossing."
In opposition to the summary judgment motion, Mr. St. Amant attached
excerpts from Mr. Shrewsberry' s deposition.' In his deposition, Mr. Shrewsberry
testified that he did not know whether DOTD sent someone out to look at the
crossing after the incident. Mr. Shrewsberry also stated that DOTD did not
maintain the crossing involved in the incident.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Mr. St. Amant contends that the trial court erred in granting the
summary judgment motion because DOTD' s evidence was not sufficient to prove
that it did not have a duty to maintain the railroad crossing, based on several state
statutes. Mr. St. Amant cites La. R. S. 48: 382, 48: 386( A), and 48: 21 to support his
contention that DOTD owed him a duty to maintain the crossing. Louisiana
Revised Statutes 48: 382 states, in pertinent part:
A. When an existing highway is intersected ... by a facility or
utility used or to be used for the transportation of persons or
commodities, as a railway ..., the owner of the facility or utility
s Mr. Shrewsberry' s name on the cover of the deposition excerpts is " William Curtis
Shrewsberry, Jr."
7
shall provide a means of crossing the highway which in the opinion of
the chief engineer or his duly authorized representative is appropriate
and adequate and shall provide for the subsequent maintenance
and replacement of the crossing in accordance with current
maintenance standards.
B. When a highway is constructed across such an existing facility
or utility, the agency constructing or causing the construction of
the highway shall provide for the construction of an adequate and
appropriate crossing and for the subsequent maintenance and
replacement of the crossing in accordance with current maintenance
standards.
Emphasis added.)
As can be seen from the language of La. R. S. 48: 382, whether the railway
constructs a crossing over an existing highway or whether DOTD constructs a
highway over an existing crossing determines whether the railroad or DOTD is
responsible for maintaining the crossing. Mr. St. Amant did not provide evidence
to show that DOTD constructed Louisiana Highway 22 over an existing railroad
crossing, which could lead to a duty to maintain the crossing pursuant to La. R.S.
48: 382( B).
As stated earlier, Mr. St. Amant also relies on La. R.S. 48: 386( A), which
states:
Whenever a highway crosses a railroad track at grade, and the grade
crossing needs repair and should, in the judgment of the chief
engineer or his duly authorized representative, be repaired, and if,
after fifteen days' notice in writing, the railroad company whose
tracks are crossed thereby fails to repair it, the department may make
the repairs and maintain the crossing and charge the expenses thereof
to the railroad company.
DOTD contends that La. R.S. 48: 386( A) provides that it may make repairs and
maintain a railroad crossing at the railroad' s expense where the railroad company
fails to repair it within fifteen days of notice of a deficiency. Moreover, DOTD
correctly contends that La. R.S. 48: 386( A) does not require it to repair and
maintain a railroad crossing. Mr. St. Amant did not provide evidence to rebut Mr.
Shrewsberry' s statements in his affidavit that DOTD did not maintain the crossing.
Mr. St. Amant also refers to La. R.S. 48: 21 as the basis of his contention that
DOTD had to maintain the crossing. Louisiana Revised Statutes 48: 21 states, in
pertinent part:
A. The functions of the department shall be to study, administer,
construct, improve, maintain, repair, and regulate the use of public
transportation systems and to perform such other functions with
regard to public highways, roads, and other transportation related
facilities as may be conferred on the department by applicable law.
In interpreting the different statutes that Mr. St. Amant proposes control in this
case, we note the general rule of statutory construction, which is that a specific
statute controls over a broader, more general statute. Burge v. State, 2010- 2229
La. 2111111), 54 So. 3 d 1110, 1113. While DOTD' s functions include the duty to
maintain and repair public highways and roads, the more specific statutes covering
railroad crossings apply in this case.
In our de novo review of this matter, we initially consider that DOTD will
not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issues before the court on summary
judgment. We find that through the exhibits attached to its motion for summary
judgment, DOTD established that it did not own, control, or maintain the railroad
tracks or the concrete or area in between the tracks at the location of this accident.
Thereafter, the burden shifted to Mr. St. Amant to show there were genuine issues
of material fact as to whether DOTD had any responsibility to maintain the railroad
crossing in question. Mr. St. Amant did not then come forward with factual
support to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to DOTD' s custody, care, or
ownership of the crossing. In the excerpts from Mr. Shrewsberry' s deposition that
Mr. St. Amant submitted in opposition to the summary judgment motion, he stated
that DOTD did not maintain the railroad crossing that is the subject of this suit.
0
Therefore, we find that DOTD is entitled to summary judgment. Mr. St. Amant' s
contentions that the trial court erred in granting DOTD' s summary judgment have
no merit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of February 9, 2023,
granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the State of Louisiana, through
the Department of Transportation and Development, and dismissing the claims
brought against it by Vernon St. Amant with prejudice. Costs of this appeal are
assessed to Vernon St. Amant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
10