LIONEL JONES AND WILLIE WILSON v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY ZURICH AMERICAON INSURANCE COMPANY POWELL CABLE COMPANY AND KAREN JONES (2022)

I agree with the majority's decision to deny this writ application. I write separately, however, to emphasize that the issue of whether there was evidence sufficient to find that Karren Jones was acting in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident, as argued in the writ application, was rendered moot by the failure of counsel to object to the trial court's questioning of Ms. Jones’ employer. I agree with Judge Ledet's concurrence that, because no contemporaneous objection was lodged at the time of that questioning, respondent “failed to preserve the issue for review.” Jones v. Maryland Cas. Co., 2018-0552 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/11/22), 339 So. 3d 1243, 1252 (Ledet, J. concurring). It is on this basis that a denial of the writ application is warranted.

I further note that I also agree with Judge Ledet that, had this been a jury trial, I would have found that the trial court committed reversible error by eliciting a legal conclusion on an ultimate issue of liability from an unrepresented lay witness, although, again, the issue was mooted by the failure of counsel to object. While questions from the bench are not proscribed, judges should be circumspect in the exercise of that prerogative. It is the province of lawyers to prove up their clients’ cases, not judges.

McCALLUM, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.