Jones v. Turner et al
Filing
39
ORDER AND REASONS granting 38 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/30/2013. (mmm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRENDA JONES
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13-85
NICHELLE TURNER, GIROD
GOULER, HERMAN THOMAS,
DERRICK BREUN, VEOLIA
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
INC., CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,
REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE UNKNOWN
INSURERS
SECTION: R
ORDER AND REASONS
On November 12, 2013, the Court issued an Order and Reasons
in this matter granting summary judgment for defendants Nichelle
Turner, Gerard Guter, Herman Thomas, Derrick Breun, and Veolia
Transportation Services, Inc.1 In that Order, the Court ruled
that plaintiff's claims against those defendants could not
survive summary judgment because there was no evidence in the
record tending to establish that the elements of those claims
were met.2 The City of New Orleans now moves for summary judgment
as well.3 Plaintiff has not filed a response. For the following
reasons, the Court GRANTS the City's motion.
1
R. Doc. 35.
2
Id. at 10-15.
3
R. Doc. 38.
Plaintiff alleges in her petition that the City is liable
for the wrongs purportedly committed by the individual defendants
because the City "has supervisory authority, direct or indirect,
over RTA [the Regional Transit Authority] and, therefore, could
have stopped the actions and damages inflicted on Plaintiff yet
chose to do nothing."4 As the City correctly points out in its
motion for summary judgment, the City cannot be held vicariously
liable in this lawsuit for two reasons.
First, there is no evidence that the City has a relationship
with any of the individual defendants or with RTA that would give
rise to vicarious liability. The individual defendants are all
employees of RTA, and RTA is a "body politic and corporate and a
political division of the state of Louisiana," La. Rev. Stat. §
48:1654(A), not an arm of the City. Accordingly, the City is not
liable for any wrongs committed by the individual defendants. See
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 ("There is no duty so to
control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from
causing physical harm to another unless (a) a special relation
exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a
duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (b)
a special relation exists between the actor and the other which
4
R. Doc. 1-1 at 3.
2
gives to the other a right to protection.").
Second, even if the City were vicariously liable for the
individual defendants' conduct, no liability would attach here,
because the Court has already dismissed plaintiff's claims
against each of the individual defendants.5 See Gordon v.
Degelmann, 29 F.3d 295, 298 (7th Cir. 1994) ("You can't have
vicarious liability without primary liability.").
Accordingly, plaintiff's claims against the City cannot
succeed, and summary judgment in favor of the City is
appropriate.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of December, 2013.
__
_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
See R. Doc. 35.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?