From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Champagne v. Celotex Corp.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit
Jan 30, 1992
588 So. 2d 391 (La. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. W91-433.

October 8, 1991. Writ Granted January 30, 1992.

On writ of certiorari and review from the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu, State of Louisiana; Charley Quienalty, District Judge, Presiding.

Guillory McCall, Robert E. Guillory, Jr., Lake Charles, for defendant-applicant.

Baggett, McCall Burgess, Wm. B. Baggett, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-respondent.

Laborde Neuner, James L. Pate, Ben Mayeux, Lafayette, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins Burr, J. Michael Johnson, Larry Canada, New Orleans, Bergstedt, Lake Charles, Weller, Wheelus Green, David L. Tolin, Beaumont, Tex., Phelps Dunbar, Stephen Hall, Lemle Kelleher, Michael T. Cali, Deutsch, Kerrigan Stiles, Janet L. McDonnell, Adams Johnston, D. Russell Holwadel, New Orleans, Forman, Perry, Watkins Krutz, Richard Forman, Jackson, Miss., for other interested parties-defendants-respondents.

Before FORET, DOUCET and CULPEPPER, JJ.

Judge William A. Culpepper, Retired, participated in this decision as Judge Pro Tempore.


This writ application was filed by defendant-insurer requesting us to decide whether pre-comparative fault principles should be applied during the trial in which plaintiffs seek damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of exposure to asbestos during their employment. The trial court's ruling dated April 25, 1991 found that comparative fault principles applied to questions of contribution among the defendants. This same issue is presented in Outher Cole, et al. v. Celotex Corporation, et al., 588 So.2d 376 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1991). Both suits were filed in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court. This court stayed the trial proceedings, consolidated the instant writ application with the appeal in Cole, supra, and granted both sides additional time to file briefs.

For the reasons stated in Cole, supra, in which a separate decision is rendered by us this date, we find that pre-comparative fault principles apply, that each liable defendant is a joint tortfeasor and constitutes a different virile share, and that a finding of contributory negligence and/or assumption of the risk on the part of plaintiff bars recovery against plaintiff's employer or coemployees. Therefore, the trial court's ruling dated April 25, 1991 is hereby reversed and set aside.

WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY. STAY ORDER RECALLED.


Summaries of

Champagne v. Celotex Corp.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit
Jan 30, 1992
588 So. 2d 391 (La. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Champagne v. Celotex Corp.

Case Details

Full title:HOMER CHAMPAGNE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CELOTEX CORPORATION…

Court:Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit

Date published: Jan 30, 1992

Citations

588 So. 2d 391 (La. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Cole v. Celotex Corp.

We also consider three subsidiary issues raised by plaintiffs' application; namely: (1) whether the…

Cole v. Celotex Corp.

We granted writs and a stay order in Champagne only until we decide the present case and the issues therein.…