Court Opinion

ID: 9943490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 17:06:15.280886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:06.953658
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                              COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                               NO. 2023 CA 0839

        DANIELLE ANN RAY, INDIVIDUALY AND ON BEHALF OF HER
                 MINOR CHILD, HUNTER WAYNE GARNER

                                    VERSUS
y

                    LYNX PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC.

                            CONSOLIDATED WITH
J'r
                               NO. 2023 CA 0840

        BRITTINI GARNER AND ANGELA SHARPE ON BEHALF OF THE
                     MINOR CHILD, BRIANNE GARNER

                                    VERSUS

       SPECIALTY BOAT RENTALS, LLC, SCULLY' S ALUMINUM BOATS,
          INC., SCULLY' S ALUMINUM CRAFTS, INC., GULF COAST
       CHEMICAL, LLC, AND AMERICAN INTERSTATE INSURANCE CO.

                            CONSOLIDATED WITH

                               NO. 2023 CA 0841

      DANIELLE ANN RAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND OBO HER MINOR CHILD,
                          HUNTER WAYNE GARNER

                                    VERSUS

      SPECIALTY BOAT RENTALS, LLC, SCULLY ALUMINUM BOATS, INC.
          SCULLY ALUMINIMUM CRAFTS, INC. AND GULF COAST
                               CHEMICAL, LLC

                                      Judgment Rendered.     FEB 2 3 2024

                               Appealed from the
                           32nd Judicial District Court
                       In and for the Parish of Terrebonne
                                State of Louisiana
                     Case No. 168971 c/w 170285, c/ w 171502

             The Honorable Timothy C. Ellender, Jr., Judge Presiding
Dominick F. Impastato, III         Counsel for Plaintiffs/ Appellants
Anthony J. Impastato               Brittini and Brianne Garner
Vincent P. Impastato
New Orleans, Louisiana
     and

Tanner Magee
Houma, Louisiana

David M. Thorguson                 Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees
Morgan City, Louisiana             Scully' s Aluminum Boats, Inc. and
     and                           Scully' s Metal Fabrication, Inc.
Lloyd T. Bourgeois, Jr.
Bayou Vista, Louisiana

           BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ.

                               2
THERIOT, J.

         Brittini Garner and Brianne Garner appeal the 32" d Judicial District Court' s

February 9, 2023 judgment granting Scully' s Aluminum Boats, Inc. and Scully' s

Metal Fabrication, Inc.' s motion for partial summary judgment.

         For the following reasons, we affirm.

                           FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On February 9, 2013, David Wayne Garner (" Mr. Garner") was aboard a

vessel assigned to him by his employer, Lynx Production Services, Inc. (" Lynx"),

in the navigable waters off the coast of Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The vessel,

which was allegedly owned by Specialty Boat Rentals, LLC, capsized and became

submerged underwater, resulting in Mr. Garner' s death.

         At the time of his passing, Mr. Garner had three children: Brittini Garner,

Brianne Garner, and Hunter Garner.'                    This      appeal         involves       only     Appellants,

Brittini and Brianne Garner, and Appellees, Scully' s Aluminum Boats, Inc. and
                                                                                       2
Scully' s Metal Fabrication, Inc. ( collectively, " Scully' s" ).                          Scully' s allegedly sold

the subject vessel to Specialty Boat Rentals, LLC two years prior to the accident.

         On     March       1,     2013,   Danielle Ann Ray filed a petition for damages

individually and on behalf of her minor child, Hunter, which named Lynx as a

defendant and contained state law claims and federal claims,                                    including claims

based upon the Jones Act.                   On August 23, 2013, Brittini and Angela Sharpe,

individually and on behalf of then -minor child Brianne,                                     filed a petition for

damages against several defendants, including                             Scully' s.       This petition was also

brought pursuant to the Jones Act and specifically alleged that Mr. Garner was a

Jones Act seaman.                On February 7, 2014, Danielle Ann Ray filed another petition

I When these legal proceedings began, Brianne and Hunter were under the age of majority. On July 26, 2018,
following a motion to substitute filed by Lynx and after Brianne reached the age of majority, the trial court ordered
Brianne to appear and substitute herself as a plaintiff in this action.     It is unclear from the record whether Hunter
Garner has reached the age of majority.

2 Scully' s Metal Fabrication, Inc. was initially misnamed as Scully' s Aluminum Crafts, Inc. The plaintiffs in this
matter filed a third amended petition substituting the former for the latter in September 2018.
for damages individually and on behalf of Hunter. This petition, which contained

negligence claims, also named Scully' s as one of several defendants.         These three

matters were consolidated on June 9, 2014.

       In February 2016, the plaintiffs in this now -consolidated matter filed a first

amended petition for damages wherein they asserted claims under the Longshore

and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U. S. C. §               901 (" LHWCA").     The

plaintiffs specifically alleged in their first amended petition for damages that Mr.

Garner " could be classified as a longshoreman"         under the LHWCA.         The first

amended petition also re -averred and        realleged the   allegations of the original

petition.   Accordingly, at this stage in the proceedings, the plaintiffs had alleged

that Mr. Garner was a Jones Act seaman or a longshoreman.

       In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended petition wherein they

asserted additional claims against Scully' s based on the Louisiana Products

Liability Act.     This petition also re -averred and realleged the allegations of the

original petition.

       On September 4, 2018, Scully' s answered the plaintiffs' original petition as

amended by the first amended petition and second amended petition. Relevantly,

Scully' s admitted the plaintiffs' allegations relating to the Jones Act.         Scully' s

further admitted both parties'     longshoreman allegations insofar as they alleged

liability by Lynx, denied the amended petition insofar as it alleged liability by

Scully' s, and denied the remaining allegations for lack of sufficient information to

justify a belief therein.

       On November 2, 2022, Scully' s filed a motion for partial summary judgment

wherein it moved to dismiss all claims for nonpecuniary damages asserted by

Brittini    and   Brianne Garner ("   the   Garners")   against   Scully' s, including all

wrongful death and survival claims, pursuant to Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v.

Calhoun, 516 U. S. 199, 116 S. Ct. 619, 133 L.Ed. 2d 578 ( 1996).         Scully' s argued

                                              4
that the Garners had judicially confessed that Mr. Garner was either a Jones Act

seaman or a longshoreman covered by the LHWCA, thus making him a seafarer

under Yamaha.            Scully' s argued that, as a result, the Garners could not assert

claims for nonpecuniary damages, nor could they supplement their general

maritime wrongful death claims with Louisiana wrongful death or survival claims.

Scully' s specifically sought to dismiss any claims for nonpecuniary damages and

any state law claims filed by the Garners, highlighting their repeated allegations

that Mr. Garner was either Jones Act seaman or a longshoreman at the time of his

death.'     Scully' s further asserted that it had admitted to Mr. Garner' s Jones Act or

LHWCA status in its previously -filed answer.

          A hearing on Scully' s motion for partial summary judgment was held on

January 19, 2023. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled that the

Garners had judicially confessed that Mr. Garner was                                   a Jones Act seaman.

Specifically, the trial court noted that the Garners alleged that Mr. Garner was a

seaman or a longshoreman for the entirety of the litigation, through multiple

amendments to petitions and answers.                     In a judgment signed on February 9, 2023,

the trial court granted Scully' s motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed

with    prejudice "     all claims for non -pecuniary damages, including all wrongful -

death and survival claims under the Louisiana Civil Code."

          This appeal by the Garners followed.

                                     ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

          The Garners assert the following as error:

           1)   The trial court erred in concluding that a judicial confession was
          made.

           2) The trial court erred by failing to find that any judicial confession
          was withdrawn by an error of fact.

3 Danielle Ann Ray, on behalf of Hunter, filed a motion with this Court indicating that she had settled all of Hunter' s
claims in this matter in 2018 and is no longer a party to this litigation. Although the record contains evidence of
settlements with other defendants, there is no proof in the record of a settlement between Danielle Ann Ray, on
behalf of Hunter, and Scully' s.

                                                           5
          3)   The trial court erred by concluding that a judicial confession
         precluded the weighing of other evidence admitted on summary
        judgment.

          4)   The trial court erred by concluding that a judicial confession
         precluded other evidence on the issue of David Garner' s status when
         there was no evidence of detrimental reliance provided.

          5) The trial court erred by denying the Garners'                                 objections       to

         Scully' s exhibits submitted on summary judgment.

          6) The trial court erred by failing to find that there were genuine
         issues of material fact precluding the granting of Scully' s motion for
         partial summary judgment.

                                      STANDARD OF REVIEW4

Summary Judgment

         Summary judgment procedure is favored and " is designed to secure the just,

speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action .... and shall be construed to

accomplish these ends."               La. Code Civ. P. art. 966( A)(2).                  In reviewing the trial

court' s decision on a motion for summary judgment, this court applies a de novo

standard of review using the same criteria applied by the trial courts to determine

whether summary judgment is appropriate.                          Bass v. Disa Glob. Sols., Inc., 2019-

1145 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 12/ 20), 305 So. 3d 903, 906, writ denied, 2020- 01025 ( La.

11/ 4/ 20), 303 So. 3d 651.

         After an opportunity for adequate discovery,                              a    motion      for 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. Code Civ. P. art. 966( A)(3).                     The only

documents that may be filed in support of or in opposition to the motion are

4 We note that the motion for partial summary judgment at issue in this appeal was filed and decided under La. Code
Civ. P. art. 966 prior to its amendment by 2023 La. Acts No. 317, §        I, and 2023 La. Acts No. 368, §       1,   which
became effective on August 1, 2023. This court has determined that the 2023 amendments to La. Code Civ. P. art.
966, which expanded the exclusive list of documents that are considered competent evidence in support of or in
opposition to a motion for summary judgment and changed the duties of parties in supporting and opposing motions
for summary judgment, are substantive and therefore cannot be applied retroactively. See Ricketson v. McKenzie,
2023- 0314, p. 7- 9 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 10/4/ 23), _  So.3d _, _;       see also La. Civ. Code. art. 6 (" in the absence of
contrary legislative expression, substantive laws apply prospectively only. Procedural and interpretive laws apply
both prospectively and retroactively, unless there is a legislative expression to the contrary.").

                                                           1.
                                                            1
pleadings, memoranda, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, certified

medical    records,    written   stipulations,   and   admissions.   La. Code Civ. P.       art.

966( A)(4); Bass, 305 So. 3d at 906.

        The mover bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to summary

judgment. However, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the

subject matter of the motion,         he need only demonstrate the absence of factual

support for one or more essential elements of his opponent' s claim,              action,    or

defense.    La. Code Civ. P. art. art. 966( D)( 1).      If the moving party points out that

there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the

adverse party' s claim, action, or defense, then the nonmoving party must produce

factual support 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. La. Code Civ.

P. art. 966( D)( 1);   Bass, 305 So. 3d at 906.

        In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court' s role is not to

evaluate the weight of the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but

instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. A " genuine"

issue is a triable issue, which means that an issue is genuine if reasonable persons

could disagree; if on the state of the evidence, reasonable persons could reach only

one conclusion, there is no need for a trial on that issue. A fact is " material"     when

its existence or nonexistence may be essential to plaintiffs cause of action under

the applicable theory of recovery. Bass, 305 So. 3d at 906- 07.

The Jones Act and LHWCA

        The Jones Act grants " a seaman" a cause of action against his employer in

negligence; only seamen may sue thereunder.               In contrast, Congress enacted the

LHWCA to establish a federal compensation remedy for injuries to certain land-

based workers occurring on navigable waters.                Generally, coverage under the

LHWCA excluded " a master or member of a crew of any vessel."                The LHWCA,

                                                  7
therefore, limits the definition of "seaman" in the Jones Act so as " to confine the

benefits of the Jones Act to the members of the crew of a vessel plying in

navigable waters and to substitute for the right of recovery ... only such rights to

compensation as are given by the LHWCA." Thus, the seaman' s remedy is limited

to rights granted by the Jones Act, and rights granted to other maritime workers are

provided exclusively by the LHWCA. The two remedies are mutually exclusive.

Jackson v. Chem Carriers, L.L.C., 2022- 0043 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 4/ 22), 356 So. 3d

403, 414, writ denied, 2022- 01770 ( La. 2/ 14/ 23), 355 So. 3d 618, citing Sanchez v.

Smart Fabricators of Texas, L.L.C., 997 F.3d 564, 568- 69 ( 5th Cir. 2021).
                                               DISCUSSIONS

Assignment of Error # 5

         The Garners argue that the trial court erred by denying their objections to

Scully' s exhibits submitted on summary judgment. Specifically, the Garners assert

that the pleadings attached to Scully' s motion for partial summary judgment were

not admissible.

         When this matter was decided by the trial court, La. Code Civ. P. art. 966

provided in pertinent part:

          A)(4)    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. The court may permit documents
        to be filed in any electronically stored format authorized by court
        rules or approved by the clerk of the court. ( Emphasis added.)

Scully' s attachments to its motion for partial summary judgment, which are

discussed in more detail below, consist of a petition, an amended petition, and an

answer. Because petitions and answers are types of pleadings, Scully' s attachments

clearly constitute documents which may be filed in support of a motion for

summary judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 852; see also La. Code Civ. P. art.

966( A)(4). This assignment of error lacks merit.

s For ease of understanding, we address Appellants' assignments of error out of order.

                                                         8
Assignment of Error # I

        The Garners argue that the trial court erred in concluding that a judicial

confession was made.           A judicial confession is a declaration made by a party in a

judicial proceeding. That confession constitutes full proof against the party who

made it.      La. Civ. Code art. 1853.              A judicial confession is a party' s explicit

admission of an adverse factual element and has the effect of waiving evidence as

to the subject of the admission and of withdrawing the subject matter of the

confession      from issue.         Cichirillo v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 2004- 2894 ( La.

11/ 29/ 05), 917 So. 2d 424, 429.           An admission in a pleading falls within the scope

of a judicial confession and is full proof against the party making it.                          A judicial

confession must be explicit and not merely implied.                    Cola v. Cola, 2019- 0530 ( La.

App. 1 Cir. 12/ 27/ 19), 294 So. 3d 6, 11, writ denied, 2020- 00344 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20), 296

So. 3d 1068; see also La. Civ. Code art. 1853.

        Scully' s attached the following to its motion for partial summary judgment:

 1)   the Garners' original petition for damages filed on August 23, 2013; ( 2)                            the

Garners'     first amended petition for damages filed on February 10, 2016; and ( 3)

Scully' s answer to the Garners' original petitions for damage as amended by the

first amended petition and second amended petition filed on September 11, 2018.

        In their original petition, which included Scully' s as a defendant, the Garners

alleged that Mr. Garner was a Jones Act seaman.                      In their first amended petition,

the plaintiffs re -averred and realleged all allegations from their original petition.

The plaintiffs also amended their respective petitions to allege that Mr. Garner

could be classified as a longshoreman.

        In its September 11, 2018 answer, Scully' s admitted the Garners' allegations

relating to the Jones Act, including their allegation that Mr. Garner was a seaman.

6 The second amended petition, filed on June 14, 2017, was not attached to Scully' s motion for partial summary
judgment.

                                                      0
Scully' s further admitted both parties' longshoreman allegations insofar as they

alleged liability by Lynx, denied the amended petition as it alleged liability by

Scully' s, and denied remaining allegations for lack of sufficient information to

justify a belief therein.

         Based on the attachments to Scully' s motion for partial summary judgment,

we find the Garners' repeated allegations that Mr. Garner was a seaman or a

longshoreman fall within the scope of a judicial confession and constitute full

proof against the Garners.     See Cola, 294 So. 3d at 11.   Their judicial confession

waives evidence as to the subject of the admission and withdraws the subject

matter of the confession from issue.     See Cichirillo, 917 So. 2d at 429.   The trial

court properly concluded that a judicial confession was made.      This assignment of

error lacks merit.

Assignment of Error #4

         The Garners argue that the trial court erred by concluding that a judicial

confession precluded other evidence on the issue of David Garner' s status when

there was no evidence of detrimental reliance provided.       Relevant to the instant

matter is the established rule that a party who has made such an admission in a

previous suit is not barred from denying the facts contained in that admission in a

subsequent suit, unless the adverse party has been prejudiced by his reliance upon

that admission.      Mayo v. Hutchison, 2016- 1642 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 27/ 17), 232

So. 3d 567, 573; see also Alexis v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 604 So. 2d 581, 582 ( La.

1992).

         The Garners cite Alexis, 604 So.2d 581 in support of their assertion that

Scully' s must assert and prove detrimental reliance.   However, unlike the alleged

admission in Alexis, the Garners' admissions were made in the same, consolidated

suit.   We further note that the Garners' admissions were made repeatedly in several

different pleadings over a five- year period and have remained unchanged since at

                                           10
least 2018.         We find that the trial court correctly concluded that a judicial

admission occurred.           This assignment of error lacks merit.

Assip-nment of Error #2

         The Garners argue that the trial court erred by failing to find that any judicial

confession was withdrawn by an error of fact. A judicial confession is indivisible

and it may be revoked only on the ground of error of fact. La. Civ. Code art. 1853.

         The Garners attached portions of the deposition of Daniel Garner, Mr.

Garner' s brother who worked alongside Mr. Garner at Lynx, to their opposition to

Scully' s motion for partial summary judgment.                          In the attached portions of the

deposition, Daniel Garner describes Mr. Garner' s job position working for Lynx as

a "   pumper"     or " gauger."'         The Garners assert that Daniel Garner' s deposition

testimony contradicts their own statements of fact in the original and amended

petitions relating to Mr. Garner' s status as a seaman or longshoreman.

         Daniel Garner' s deposition was taken on February 5, 2016.                                The Garners

amended their petition twice after the deposition was taken — first on February 10,

2016 and again on September 6, 2018. In each of these amendments, the Garners

specifically re -averred and realleged all allegations from their original petition as if

copied     in   extensor.      Accordingly, despite the Garners'                     argument that Daniel

Garner' s deposition contradicts the allegations in their original petition and

amended petition, the Garners reiterated their claim that Mr. Garner was a Jones

Act seaman on at least two separate occasions after the deposition by re -averring

and realleging all allegations from their original petition.                           The Garners further

added their longshoreman claims ( and reiterated same) after the deposition took

place.    The Garners did not attempt to amend their petition to remove that claim

until the hearing at the motion for partial summary judgment, despite having ample

time to do so.            Considering their failure to remove the purported erroneous

 According to Daniel Garner' s deposition testimony, a " contract gauger takes care of an oil and gas facility for an
oil and gas producer" and makes sure the facility' s equipment is " functioning properly."

                                                         11
confession in the years following the 2016 deposition, their argument rings hollow

at this stage of these proceedings.   This assignment of error lacks merit.

Assignment of Error #3

      The Garners argue that the trial court erred by concluding that a judicial

confession precluded the weighing of other evidence ( namely, Daniel Garner' s

deposition testimony) admitted on summary judgment.          The Garners cite Collins

v. Hill, 52,457 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 2/ 27/ 19), 265 So. 3d 1202, 1209 in support of their

assertion that, when there is other evidence in the record creating disputed issues of

fact despite a judicial admission or confession,       it is proper to deny summary

judgment.   However, Collins is distinguishable from the present scenario because

of other genuine issues of material fact that had not been judicially confessed.

Regarding the issue of material fact that was judicially confessed in Collins, the

Second Circuit Court of Appeal noted that the dispute over that particular fact ( in

that case, whether an agreement was a sale or a lease)       was ended.   Collins, 265

So. 3d at 1208- 09.

      As stated above, a judicial confession is a party' s explicit admission of an

adverse factual element and has the effect of waiving evidence as to the subject of

the admission and of withdrawing the subject matter of the confession from issue.

Cichirillo, 917 So.2d at 429.   By repeatedly asserting that Mr. Garner was a Jones

Act seaman or longshoreman, the Garners have waived evidence as to the subject

of that admission and withdrawn that subject matter ( i. e. his status as a Jones Act

seaman or longshoreman) from issue. This assignment of error lacks merit.

Assignment of Error #6

      The Garners argue that the trial court erred by failing to find that there were

genuine issues of material fact precluding the granting of Scully' s motion for

partial summary judgment. Considering our finding that a judicial confession was

made, we reiterate that the Garners' judicial confession waived evidence as to the

                                            12
subject of the admission and withdrew the subject matter of the confession from

issue.    See Cichirillo, 917 So. 2d at 429.      Despite the Garners' argument to the

contrary, we decline to find that the trial court' s admission of evidence,         as

authorized by La. Code Civ. P. art 966, creates a genuine issue of material fact

when that evidence relates to a fact that has already been judicially admitted.

Therefore, for the purposes of Scully' s motion for partial summary judgment, there

were no remaining issues of material fact as to whether the Garners judicially

confessed that Mr. Garner was a Jones Act seaman or longshoreman.

         Scully' s motion for partial summary judgment was specifically intended to

dismiss all claims for non -pecuniary damages asserted against Scully' s by the

Garners,    including all wrongful death and survival claims under the Louisiana

Civil Code.    According to Scully' s, Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516

U.S. 199, 116 S. Ct. 619, 133 L.Ed. 2d 578 ( 1996) is the controlling Supreme Court

opinion.

         In Yahama, the Supreme Court considered whether federal maritime claims

for wrongful death supply the exclusive remedy in cases involving the deaths of

nonseafarers in territorial waters, thus precluding the application of state laws.

Yamaha, 516 U. S. at 205.      The Supreme Court defined " nonseafarers"      to mean

persons who are neither seamen covered by the Jones Act, nor longshore workers

covered by LHWCA.        Id. at 205, n. 2.   The Supreme Court ultimately concluded

that the damages available for the death of a nonseafarer in territorial waters are

properly governed by state law. Id. at 216. However, in the event of the death of a

seafarer in territorial waters, federal maritime law ( such as the Jones Act and

LHWCA) applies. Id. at 202, 215.

         Accordingly, the question of whether Mr. Garner was a seaman or

longshoreman ( in other words, a seafarer) determines whether the Garners' claims

are governed exclusively by federal maritime law or whether state statutes may be

                                             13
applied.    Having found that the Garners judicially confessed that Mr. Garner is a

seaman or longshoreman, we find that the Garners' claims are governed by federal

maritime law.       As a result, their state law claims for wrongful death and survival

damages must be dismissed.

         Further,   nonpecuniary damages cannot be recovered for the death of a

longshoreman injured in territorial waters.           Welch   v. Fugro   Geosciences,   Inc.,

2000- 1231 ( La. App. 1      Cir. 11/ 21/ 01),   804 So. 2d 710, 717.    The Supreme Court

held in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32- 33, 111 S. Ct. 317, 326, 112

L.Ed. 2d    275 (   1990)   that the Jones Act limits recovery to pecuniary loss.

Accordingly, regardless of whether Mr. Garner was a seaman or a longshoreman,

the Garners' judicial confession bars any recovery for nonpecuniary damages and

their claims for non -pecuniary damages must be dismissed.

         Considering the foregoing, the trial court correctly found that there are no

genuine issues of material fact as it pertains to those claims. The Garners' state law

claims for wrongful death and survival damages, as well as the Garners' claims for

nonpecuniary damages, were properly dismissed.                This assignment of error lacks

merit.

                                           DECREE

         For the above and foregoing reasons, the 32nd Judicial District Court' s

February 9, 2023 judgment on Scully' s Aluminum Boats, Inc. and Scully' s Metal

Fabrication, Inc.' s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is affirmed. Costs of this

appeal are assessed to Appellants, Brittini Garner and Brianne Garner.

         AFFIRMED.

                                                 14
                               STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                  FIRST CIRCUIT

                                  NO. 2023 CA 0839

       DANIELLE ANN RAY, INDIVIDUALY AND ON BEHALF OF HER
                 MINOR CHILD, HUNTER WAYNE GARNER

                                       VERSUS

                     LYNX PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC.

                               CONSOLIDATED WITH

                                  NO. 2023 CA 0840

      BRITTINI GARNER AND ANGELA SHARPE ON BEHALF OF THE
                  MINOR CHILD, BRIANNE GARNER

                                       VERSUS

     SPECIALTY BOAT RENTALS, LLC, SCULLY' S ALUMINUM BOATS,
          INC., SCULLY' S ALUMINUM CRAFTS, INC., GULF COAST
     CHEMICAL, LLC, AND AMERICAN INTERSTATE INSURANCE CO.

                               CONSOLIDATED WITH

                                  NO. 2023 CA 0841

 DANIELLE ANN RAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND OBO HER MINOR CHILD,
                 HUNTER WAYNE GARNER

                                       VERSUS

 SPECIALTY BOAT RENTALS, LLC, SCULLY ALUMINUM BOATS, INC.
          SCULLY ALUMINIMUM CRAFTS, INC. AND GULF COAST
                                  CHEMICAL, LLC.

     ENZATO, J., dissenting.
WY

         I respectfully disagree with the majority and find merit in the Garners'

 assignment of error no. 4.   The Garners correctly assert that Scully' s failed to show

 that it relied on the Garners' admission to its detriment. Louisiana jurisprudence

 establishes that a party seeking to prove that another party made a j udicial confession

 must show reliance to its detriment, even when the alleged admission was made in

 the same proceeding. See Craft o/b/ o Craft v. Ogunbor, 2023- 0084 ( La. App. 1st
Cir.   11/ 9/ 23),     writ denied, 2023- 01599 ( La.    2/ 6/ 24);   State,   Department of

Transportation &         Development v. Restructure Partners, L.L.C, 2007- 1745 ( La.

App. 1st Cir. 3/ 26/ 08), 985 So. 2d 212, 229, writ denied, 2008- 1269 ( La. 9/ 19/ 08),

992 So. 2d 937;        and Mace v. Turner, 2018- 40 ( La. App. 3d Cir. 7/ 18/ 18), 2018 WL

3479226, * 4 ( unpublished).

       Therefore,       I find that Scully' s had the burden of proving reliance to its

detriment.    Because Scully' s offered no evidence to establish this, I find, on our de

novo review,         that Scully' s failed to satisfy its summary judgment burden of proof.

I would reverse the judgment, finding the trial court erred by granting Scully' s

motion for partial summary judgment.

                                               OA