Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-1167 SECTION "R" (5)
April 30, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Motiva Enterprises, L.L.C.'s motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment.
I. Background
Plaintiff Lamorries Gray, an employee of Industrial Plant Maintenance, Inc. (IPM), worked in the lawn care business. On March 21, 2000, plaintiff was using a tractor to cut grass at Motiva Enterprises when the pant leg of his coveralls got caught in the PTO, a spinning shaft at the back end of the tractor, and he was thrown to the ground. As a result, plaintiff suffered a broken leg and some burns. On March 21, 2001, Gray filed suit in state court against IPM, Motiva, XYZ, Inc. and EFG, Inc. seeking damages. On April 17, 2001, Motiva removed this case to federal court. Motiva now moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff does not oppose defendant's motion.
II. Discussion
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues as to any material facts, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2551 (1986). The court must be satisfied that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmoving party or, in other words, "that the evidence favoring the nonmoving party is insufficient to enable a reasonable jury to return a verdict in her favor." Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 178 (5th Cir. 1990); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. See Krim v. BancTexas Group, Inc., 989 F.2d 1435, 1445 (5th Cir. 1993).
If the dispositive issue is one for which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in the record contains insufficient proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2552; Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 178. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at. 2553. The nonmovant may not rest upon the pleadings but must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue exists for trial. See Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2553-54; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1996). In addition, an affidavit will not defeat summary judgment if it contains no more than a scintilla of evidence insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512.
B. Discussion
Motiva asserts that it did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff because it did not employ him, compensate him, provide him with equipment or employ his supervisors. Plaintiff has represented to the Court that he does not have an opposition to this motion.
Under Louisiana law, a duty-risk analysis is used to determine whether liability for negligence or strict liability exists. See Syrie v. Schilhad, 693 So.2d 1173, 1176 (La. 1997) Under this analysis, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was a cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached the duty and the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached; moreover, all four of these inquiries must be answered in the affirmative for the plaintiff to recover. Id. (citations omitted); Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 773 So.2d 670, 676 (La. 2000).
Here, the Court finds that Motiva did not owe plaintiff a duty. Plaintiff testified during his deposition that at the time of the accident, he was employed by IPM, that IPM paid him, that IPM provided him with the equipment and that his supervisor was an employee of IPM (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A, Dep. Gray, at 6-7.) He admitted that no one at Motiva enterprises gave him any instructions or provided him with any equipment. ( Id. at 22-23.) Indeed, he admits that he did not know anyone at Motiva. ( Id. at 24.) In contrast, plaintiff presents no evidence to show that Motiva owed him a duty. The Court therefore finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Motiva owed plaintiff a duty at the time of the accident.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment.