Case Name: Linda Daigle MATHERNE, Individually and as Tutrix and Administrator of the Estate of Her Minor Son, Hunter Daigle v. Anthony CHERAMIE and JoAnn Cheramie, Individually and as Tutors and Administrators of the Estate of Their Minor Son, Dustin Cheramie, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1995-09-26
Citations: 664 So. 2d 130
Docket Number: No. 94 CA 0760
Parties: Linda Daigle MATHERNE, Individually and as Tutrix and Administrator of the Estate of Her Minor Son, Hunter Daigle v. Anthony CHERAMIE and JoAnn Cheramie, Individually and as Tutors and Administrators of the Estate of Their Minor Son, Dustin Cheramie, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
Judges: Before CARTER, LeBLANC, FOGG, PITCHER and FITZSIMMONS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 664
Pages: 130–131

Head Matter:
Linda Daigle MATHERNE, Individually and as Tutrix and Administrator of the Estate of Her Minor Son, Hunter Daigle v. Anthony CHERAMIE and JoAnn Cheramie, Individually and as Tutors and Administrators of the Estate of Their Minor Son, Dustin Cheramie, and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
No. 94 CA 0760.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Sept. 26, 1995.
Writ Denied Jan. 5, 1996.
Rebecca N. Robichaux, Raceland, for Plaintiff-Appellant — Linda Daigle Matherne.
Denis J. Gaubert, III, Thibodaux, for Defendants-Appellees — Ronnie Duet and Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company.
Lloyd T. Bourgeois, Labadieville, for Defendant — State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.
Michael H. Martin, Cut Off, for Defendants — Anthony and JoAnn Cheramie.
Before CARTER, LeBLANC, FOGG, PITCHER and FITZSIMMONS, JJ.

Opinion:
2FITZSIMMONS, Judge.
The trial court found defendants, Ronnie M. Duet and Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, immune from liability pursuant to La.R.S. 9:2791 and 9:2795 and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, Linda Daigle Matherne, individually and on behalf of her minor son, Hunter Daigle, appealed. We affirm.
The main facts concerning the land in question are not in dispute. Mr. Duet grazed cattle and horses on a 200 acre, undeveloped piece of land. The land was mostly pasture land, with a few trees. The presence of residences along a road adjacent to one side of the property does not change the character of the property from rural or semi-rural to urban or sub-urban. See Eschete v. Mecom, 509 So.2d 840 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 513 So.2d 821 (La.1987) and Stuart v. Morgan City, 504 So.2d 934 (La. App. 1st Cir.1987). The nearest community is the unincorporated town of Galiano on Highway 308. The trial court was familiar with the geographic location and the character of the area. Mr. Duet allowed people from the near-by houses to hunt, fish, and use the property for recreational purposes.
After a thorough review of the record, we find no genuine issue of material fact remained. The mover was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We agree with the trial court that this is "a classic example" of the type of land on which the legislature meant to confer immunity in La.R.S. 9:2791 and 9:2795. Costs of the appeal are assessed to plaintiff.
AFFIRMED.