BURNS v. LOOMIS ARMORED LLC (2026)

Writ granted. Applicant Loomis Armored US, LLC seeks review of a trial court's dismissal of its claims against Asphalt Transport, Inc. on summary judgment as well as review of the appellate opinion which affirmed the ruling.

The opinion of the appellate court affirmed the district court judgment granting summary judgment “in favor of third-party defendants, Asphalt Transit, Inc. and James Carnez Burns.” Mr. Burns, the driver of the ATI semi-truck, was not a party to the summary judgment filed by ATI. Further, both drivers acknowledge the existence of a third vehicle which precipitated the accident.

The trial court erred in apportioning fault through a motion for summary judgment. Ordinarily, the determination of whether negligence exists is a question of fact. Freeman v. Teague, 37,932 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d 371, 373. Cases involving a question of negligence ordinarily are not appropriate for summary judgment. Id. This principle extends to questions of comparative fault. Id. However, where reasonable minds cannot differ, a question of comparative fault is a question of law that may be resolved by summary judgment. Id. Here, where three vehicles could possibly be determined to bear some fault, the apportionment of fault should be determined by the trier of fact.

Accordingly, the rulings of the lower courts are reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND REMANDED.

I agree in part and dissent in part. I would grant the writ application to vacate that portion of the court of appeal opinion granting summary judgment to James Carnez Burns. I would deny the writ application in all other respects based upon the showing made.

PER CURIAM

Penzato, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons.