Case Name: Vera M. RAINEY v. ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC. and Mike Case
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2008-08-15
Citations: 993 So. 2d 735
Docket Number: No. 2006 CA 0816
Parties: Vera M. RAINEY v. ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC. and Mike Case.
Judges: Before CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE, PARRO, KUHN, GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, DOWNING, GAIDRY, MCDONALD, McCLENDON, and WELCH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 993
Pages: 735–749

Head Matter:
Vera M. RAINEY v. ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC. and Mike Case.
No. 2006 CA 0816.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Aug. 15, 2008.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 25, 2008.
Kenneth P. Carter, Cory R. Cahn, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellant En-tergy Gulf States, Inc.
John A. Braymer, Baton Rouge, LA.
Russell W. Beall, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiffs/Appellees Joanne Mays and James McAllister.
Leonard Cardenas, III, Baton Rouge, LA, In Proper Person as Intervenor.
Before CARTER, C.J., WHIPPLE, PARRO, KUHN, GUIDRY, PETTIGREW, DOWNING, GAIDRY, MCDONALD, McCLENDON, and WELCH, JJ.
. The Hon. Jefferson D. Hughes, III, J., re-cused himself from consideration of this matter.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
[ 2Pefendant-appeIIant, Entergy Gulf States, Inc. ("Entergy"), appeals the trial court's judgment that rejected its affirmative defense of statutory employer tort immunity and held it liable for the damages sustained by Vera M. Rainey ("Rai-ney"). This court, sitting en banc, has considered the merits of Entergy's appeal. Eleven of the twelve judges of this court have participated, but we are unable to render a decree reflecting a majority judgment on each issue presented in this case. Because there is no majority consensus on the dispositive issue of whether Entergy is immune from tort liability as Rainey's statutory employer, there is no executable majority judgment, and the effect of this court's vote is that the trial court's judgment stands.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In January 1999, ABB C-E Services, Inc. ("ABB") began a construction job at Entergy's Willow Glen power plant jobsite in St. Gabriel. ABB performed work pursuant to an agreement with Entergy that was executed in 1992. On February 15, 1999, Rainey, a journeyman boilermaker working for ABB at Willow Glen, fell down a stairway at the jobsite. Rainey filed a negligence action against Entergy, asserting that Entergy caused the accident since, among other things, it utilized a substandard staircase and failed to provide adequate lighting in the work area. ABB intervened in the suit and sought reimbursement for the workers' compensation benefits it paid to and on behalf of Rainey. Prior to trial, Entergy attempted to raise the statutory employer defense, but the trial court denied pEntergy's motion for leave of court to file a supplemental and amending answer to allege the defense.
After a three-day bench trial, which commenced on December 6, 2000, the trial court took the case under advisement. On March 14, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Rainey and against Entergy, awarding Rainey $839,916.08 in damages. The trial court also awarded ABB $53,641.52 for the workers' compensation benefits paid on behalf of Rainey.
Entergy appealed that judgment. After the appeal was lodged with this court, Rainey died of an illness unrelated to the injuries she sustained on February 15, 1999.
Craig Brigalia was confirmed as testamentary executor of Rainey's succession, and this court ordered his substitution as the proper party plaintiff. In that appeal, Entergy raised eight assignments of error, including that the trial court had abused its discretion by not allowing it to amend its answer to assert the statutory employer defense. This court found merit in that assignment, reversed the trial court's judgment, and remanded the case to the trial court to "allow Entergy . to amend its answer," "conduct a trial on the merits of the statutory employer issue only" and "render an appropriate judgment that decides the relevant issue or issues of the case." Rainey v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 01-2414 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/8/02), 840 So.2d 586, 591. Thus, this court pre-termitted Entergy's remaining assignments of error.
Thereafter, this court granted Brigalia a rehearing. Prior to submission of the matter on rehearing, Entergy filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action, asserting that Rainey's two surviving children, James A. McAllis-ter and Joanne M. Mays, were the legal successors of Rainey's cause of action, pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2315.1 A(l), and, therefore, that Brigalia was precluded from asserting any claim in the suit. Bri-galia responded with a motion of intervention, seeking recognition as a party in his individual capacity and, in the alternative, as a particular legatee and the residual legatee of Rainey's estate and cause of action. On rehearing, this court ruled that McAllister and Mays were "parties needed for a just adjudication" and remanded the matter to the trial court. Rainey v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 01-2414, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 1st Cir.7/2/03), 859 So.2d 63, 66, writ denied, 03-2107 (La.11/14/03), 858 So.2d 426. This court expressly stated that it would not rule on the request for rehearing until a determination of the proper parties had been made. Id.
Following the remand, the trial court: (1) ordered that Rainey's children "be hereby procedurally substituted as parties plaintiff," (2) overruled Entergy's peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action, and (3) granted "Brigalia's Alternative Motion to Intervene." Thereafter, this court considered the rehearing request and concluded that Mays and McAllister ("plaintiffs") were the | ¡^proper parties to continue the action. However, the trial court's judgment was reversed to the extent that it overruled Entergy's exception raising the objection of no right of action, and this court dismissed Brigalia's claims, Rainey v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc., 01-2414, p. 15 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/25/04), 885 So.2d 1193, 1204, writs denied, 04-1878, 04-1883, and 04-1884 (La.11/15/04), 887 So.2d 478 and 479. This court reinstated its November 8, 2002 original opinion. Thus, this court again remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to "allow Entergy . to amend its answer," "conduct a trial on the merits of the statutory employer issue only," and "render an appropriate judgment that decides the relevant issue or issues of the case." Id.
Upon remand, Leonard Cardenas, III, counsel for Rainey and Brigalia, intervened in the lawsuit to protect his interests and assert a privilege for any attorney's fees and costs recovered. Entergy also filed an amended answer, in which it asserted its defense, averring that Rainey was the statutory employee of Entergy at the time of her alleged injuries and that Rainey's recovery was limited to workers' compensation benefits. The trial of the statutory employer defense was held on August 1, 2005, and on November 2, 2005, the trial court signed a judgment that ordered "the affirmative defense of statutory employer tort immunity asserted by defendant [Entergy] is denied." Entergy suspensively appealed the trial court's ruling.
Because the judgment only addressed the statutory employer issue and did not address any other "issues of the case," this court concluded that the November 2, 2005 judgment was a non-appealable partial final judgment. On May 8, 2007, we issued an order remanding the matter to the trial court "for the limited purpose of having the trial court sign a judgment that adjudicates all the issues, including the statutory employer issue, based on the existing record," and we ordered supplementation of the appellate record with the new judgment.
|fiThe trial court signed a new judgment on May 31, 2007, denying Entergy's statutory employer defense and reinstating its prior damage award of $839,916.08. The judgment also denied ABB's claims for reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits.
Our appellate record has been supplemented with the trial court's May 31, 2007 final judgment, and Entergy has reurged its assignments of error raised pursuant to its underlying appeal.
II. ANALYSIS
Louisiana Constitution Article V, § 8(B) requires that "[a] majority of the judges sitting in a case must concur to render judgment." In the instant case, four of the eleven judges would reverse the trial court's judgment, finding that the trial court erred in concluding that Entergy was not Rainey's statutory employer at the time of her fall; three judges would affirm the trial court's judgment on the basis that Entergy failed to establish the existence of a timely-executed, written addendum to its contract with ABB (or, alternatively, remand for the trial court to determine whether such an addendum was timely executed before Rainey's accident); one judge would remand the matter to the trial court to make a full and reasoned determination as to whether the statutory employer addendum was ^executed prior to the accident in question, and three judges would dismiss the appeal based on a finding that this court does not have jurisdiction to render a judgment. Accordingly, there is no executable majority judgment, and the effect is that the decision of the trial court stands. Parfait v. Transocean Offshore, Inc., 07-1915 (La.3/14/08), 980 So.2d 634, 636, and 639.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the trial court judgment stands, and appeal costs are assessed against Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT STANDS.
KUHN, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
WHIPPLE, J., concurs in the result and assigns additional reasons.
McDONALD, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Judge KUHN.
WELCH, J., concurs for the reasons assigned by Judge WHIPPLE.
PETTIGREW, J., concurs with the results and assigns reasons.
PARRO, J., concurs in part and assigns reasons.
McCLENDON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
GAIDRY, J., dissents for reasons assigned and would dismiss again.
GUIDRY, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Judge GAIDRY.
. Rainey also sued Mike Case, an employee of Entergy, whom she alleged was responsible for the safety of the premises where she fell. The trial court later dismissed all claims against Mike Case with prejudice, and the dismissal of these claims is not challenged in this appeal.
. The original trial date was scheduled to begin on July 5, 2000, but was continued until August 31, 2000. On August 29, 2000, Enter-gy filed its motion for leave to file the supplemental and amending answer to allege the statutory employer defense, but the trial court summarily denied Entergy's motion. On August 30, 2000, Rainey requested that the trial be continued without date because of illness. The trial court granted Ramey's motion. Subsequently, Entergy re-urged its motion, but the trial court again denied it, reasoning that the continuance did not open the case for further pleadings or discovery.
. Specifically, the trial court awarded the following amounts to Rainey;
a. General Damages $ 400,000.00
b. Past Medical Expenses $ 53,994.00
c. Future Medical $ 30,000.00
d. Past Lost Wages $ 55,994.00
e. Future Lost Earnings $ 300,000.00
. At times, Rainey's son is identified as "McAllister" and at others as "McCallister." Consistent with our prior opinion, we utilize the former spelling.
. On February 12, 2001, Rainey executed a last will and testament by notarial act in which she designated Craig Brigalia as a testamentary executor of her succession and bequeathed her "lawsuit" to him in a particular legacy.
. More specifically, this court instructed the trial court to: (1) issue citations to McAllister and Mays ordering them to either assert claims for rights of action in this case or renounce the claims; (2) hold an evidentiary hearing on Entergy's exception and render a judgment on the exception if either McAllister or Mays, or both of them, asserted a right of action; and (3) thereafter, consider and take the appropriate action on Brigalia's motion to intervene.
. Like the March 14, 2001 judgment, the May 31, 2007 judgment awarded plaintiffs judicial interest and court costs.
. After the new judgment was signed, Entergy filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied.
. Entergy asserts the trial court erred in: 1) finding that a written contract did not exist between Entergy and ABB recognizing Enter-gy as a statutory employer; 2) finding that Entergy was not immune from tort liability as Rainey's statutory employer; 3) denying En-tergy's Motion for New Trial; 4) finding that the stairway and lighting existing at the time of Rainey's accident constituted a dangerous condition that would reasonably be expected to cause injury to a prudent person using ordinary care under the circumstances; 5) finding that Entergy knew or should have known that a vice or defect existed in the stairway and/or lighting at the time of Rai-ney's accident; 6) finding Entergy solely liable for Rainey's injuries and failing to assign any degree of fault to either Rainey's employer, ABB, which contractually assumed responsibility for Rainey's safety while performing work at Willow Glen, or to Rainey herself; 7) finding that the stairway and/or lighting were the cause-in-fact of Rainey's injuries; 8) allowing Rainey's experts, Nick Cammarata and John Laughlin, to provide expert opinions as to the cause of Rainey's accident; 9) denying Entergy's right to trial by jury for failing to timely post the jury bond after the trial was continued twice; and 10) awarding excessive and unsupported damages.