Case Name: Elise Cecile SAUCE, wife of/and Larry A. Sauce, Individually and on behalf of their minor children, Corey P. Sauce, et al. v. R. A. BUSSELL et al.; C. W. RAMSHUR and Mrs. C. W. Ramshur v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-07-01
Citations: 298 So. 2d 832
Docket Number: No. 54341
Parties: Elise Cecile SAUCE, wife of/and Larry A. Sauce, Individually and on behalf of their minor children, Corey P. Sauce, et al. v. R. A. BUSSELL et al. C. W. RAMSHUR and Mrs. C. W. Ramshur v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. et al.
Judges: DIXON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 298
Pages: 832–840

Head Matter:
Elise Cecile SAUCE, wife of/and Larry A. Sauce, Individually and on behalf of their minor children, Corey P. Sauce, et al. v. R. A. BUSSELL et al. C. W. RAMSHUR and Mrs. C. W. Ramshur v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. et al.
No. 54341.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
July 1, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 30, 1974.
Gerald Thos. LaBorde, LaBorde & Brooks, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-applicants.
Timothy J. McNamara, Davidson, Meaux, Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, Tori-an & Diaz, Lafayette, Michael J. McNulty, Jr., Bauer, Darnell, McNulty & Bou-dreaux, Jack C. Caldwell, Aycock, Horne, Caldwell, Coleman & Duncan, Franklin, Welton P. Mouton, Sr., L. H. Olivier, Wel-ton P. Mouton, Jr., W. Gerald Gaudet, Voorhies & Labbe, Lafayette, John M. Duhe, Jr., Caffery, Duhe & Davis, New Iberia, for defendants-respondents.

Opinion:
MARCUS, Justice.
The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a continuance and dismissing their claims with prejudice.
In order to resolve this issue, it is necessary to consider the posture of this litigation at the time the trial judge rendered his judgment.
These are two of eleven consolidated lawsuits arising out of an explosion at the residence of R. A. Bussell at 3004 Helen Drive, Morgan City, on July 11, 1969. Plaintiffs in each lawsuit reside in resi dences adjoining the Bussell residence. It is alleged that the explosion was due to a gas leak in the Bussell residence, causing extensive property damage and personal injuries to the plaintiffs. The two lawsuits here involved were filed in St. Mary Parish on December 11, 1969 (Ramshur) and July 9, 1970 (Sauce). Made defendants were: R. A. Bussell; his liability insurer (Allstate); the City of Morgan City; J. Ray McDermott and Company, Inc.; Friedrich Refrigerators, Inc.; Gulf Coast Electrical Supply Company, Inc.; and Master Electric Service Supply Company, Inc.
In due course, defendants answered; several defendants filed third party demands; some third party defendants filed further third party demands. All third party demands were ultimately answered. Depositions were taken. Interrogatories and cross-interrogatories were served and answered by the various parties to the litigation.
On July 19, 1972, the trial court issued an order consolidating all eleven cases for trial. A pre-trial conference was set for October 6, 1972, and the trial date was fixed for December 4, 1972. The pre-trial conference was later reassigned for October 10, 1972, at which hearing the usual pre-trial matters were handled. A further conference was set for November 1, 1972.
Defendant Allstate, on November 2, 1972, moved for a continuance of the trial date due to a trial conflict. The trial date was reset for February 5, 1973. On November 21, 1972, several defendants and third party defendants moved for a bond for costs against plaintiffs in these two lawsuits in the total amount of $10,000.00. A hearing on this matter was set for October 8, 1972. After said hearing, the rule was made absolute ordering the Ramshur and Sauce plaintiffs to post security of $2,000.00 within twenty days; otherwise, their claim against the City of Morgan City and its insurer would be dismissed as of non-suit. The security was not posted; consequently, on'January 3, 1973, the court dismissed plaintiffs' suits against the City of Morgan City and its insurer as of non-suit and without 'prejudice. On January 11, 1973, the Clerk of Court also moved for a bond for costs against these same plaintiffs for a total of $10,000.00. The rule was set for January 22, 1973; however, it was continued without date, and, on January 25, 1973, the rule was dismissed on motion of the Clerk of Court. It is significant to note that these motions for bond for costs were directed only at the Ramshur and Sauce plaintiffs and not at the plaintiffs in the other nine consolidated suits.
On January 19, 1973, plaintiffs moved to stay the proceedings herein due to the fact that they had filed another suit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans which included the City of Morgan City and its insurer, who had previously been dismissed for failure of plaintiffs to post cost bond. Movers further alleged that they had added an additional defendant to the Orleans Parish suit. This rule was fixed for February 5, 1973, the date set for the trial on the merits.
The trial judge denied the motion to stay on the ground that the facts herein did not authorize such a procedure under Article 532 C.C.P. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved for a continuance on the ground that the plaintiff, Mr. C. W. Ramshur, was critically ill and unable to withstand the ordeal of a trial at this time and that, without the presence of Mr. Ramshur, plaintiffs would not be able to proceed with the trial. Annexed to plaintiffs' motion for a continuance was a letter from Dr. Harry H. Phila-bert, dated January 29, 1973, setting forth that Mr. Ramshur was not physically and emotionally able to participate in a trial at this time.
The trial judge denied the motion for a continuance and ordered plaintiffs to proceed with the trial. The judge agreed to hold the case open for the taking of the deposition of Mr. Ramshur. Counsel for plaintiffs advised the court that he was unable to proceed without the assistance of Mr. Ramshur and was not ready for trial. Thereupon, the trial judge informed counsel for plaintiffs that, if a motion for dismissal of the actions were moved for by defendants, he would have no alternative except to grant same. Such a motion was made, and the trial judge dismissed plaintiffs' suits with prejudice. Appeal was taken and the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, affirmed. We granted certiorari.
The pertinent articles of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with the issue involved herein are:
Article 1601 C.C.P.
"A continuance may be granted in any case if there is good ground therefor."
Article 1672 C.C.P.
"A judgment dismissing an action shall be rendered upon application of any party, when the plaintiff fails to appear on the day set for trial. In such case the court shall determine whether the judgment of dismissal shall be with or without prejudice."
We must first consider whether the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to grant plaintiffs a continuance under the facts and circumstances of this case.
It is a well-established rule that the trial judge has wide discretion in acting upon a motion for continuance. His ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of clear showing of abuse of that discretion. Article 1601 C.C.P.; Bryer Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Bruno, 261 La. 177, 259 So.2d 55 (1972). While recognizing the much discretion which is vested in a trial judge in the matter of granting or refusing continuances, it has never been held that such discretion is absolute or that it may be exercised arbitrarily. This Court is vested with the right and duty to correct such errors by the trial judge in matters of this kind. However, it should be pointed out that appellate courts only interfere in such matters with reluctance and in what are considered extreme cases. State ex rel. Armstrong v. McNoughton, 183 La. 697, 164 So. 630 (1935); Lindsey v. Escude, 189 So.2d 465 (La.App.1966); Chedotal v. Richard, 183 So.2d 665 (La.App.1966).
We consider this an extreme case. It appears to us that a refusal to grant plaintiffs further time under the circumstances herein would result in an injustice. It would deprive plaintiffs of their day in court. While it is true that this litigation had been instituted some three years previous, the record clearly indicates that this time had been consumed by the filing of numerous third party demands, depositions, interrogatories and cross-interrogatories. These pleadings and discovery devices continued practically up to the trial date. According to the record, the plaintiffs had never moved for a continuance nor is there any indication of any attempts by them to delay the trial procedures. The only motion for a continuance of the trial date was that of defendant Allstate. Furthermore, it is understandable that plaintiff attorney would want the presence of Mr. Ramshur at the time of the trial. The statement of the attending physician attached to his motion for a continuance clearly states that Mr. Ramshur was physically and emotionally unable to appear on the date of the trial, and it would be three months before he could safely do so without danger to his physical state. It was stated in argument before this Court that Mr. Ramshur has had an arterial transplant, and his health is precarious.
The motion for continuance avers that Mr. Ramshur's testimony is critical not only to his own case but also to the Sauce case; that Mr. Ramshur's illness for the past two years, resulting from injuries sustained by this accident, has prevented him from conferring with his own attorney for preparation of this trial; and that counsel cannot present the case for Ramshur and Sauce without the attendance at trial of Mr. Ramshur.
In view of these circumstances and the fact that no previous continuance had ever been sought by these plaintiffs, the denial of this motion by the trial judge was an abuse of discretion.
It is significant that, after the denial of the motion for continuance and dismissal of these suits with prejudice, the trial judge entertained and granted motions for continuance in the remaining nine suits set for trial on that date. It seems more than passing strange that it was so imperative to proceed to trial, so as to suffer the penalty of dismissal with prejudice as to the Ramshur and Sauce suits for their failure to proceed, and yet to allow the continuance of trial of the nine other pending actions.
Having found an abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for continuance, it is unnecessary for us to decide the correctness of the-action dismissing the suits with prejudice under Article 1672C.C.P.
For the reasons assigned, the dismissal entered by the trial judge is set aside; the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance is set aside; the case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.
DIXON, J., concurs.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
. 288 So.2d 428.