Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Evidence Must Be Construed in Favor of Non-Moving Party
When a Party Moves for Summary Judgment

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Wood v. Becnel, 840 So.2d 1225 (La. Ct. App. 2003), the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the decision of the district court, which had granted the neighbor's motion for summary judgment. The landowners sued their neighbor for damages to their trees. The instant court held that outstanding issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.

Background

On September 1, 2000, the plaintiffs filed suit against their next-door neighbor and his insurer, alleging that their neighbor had killed four oak trees and a sweet gum tree located on their property through the negligent or intentional application of the herbicide Bromacil. Id. at 1225. The plaintiffs' expert witness, an owner of a tree service, testified in his deposition that the tree damage was caused by chemicals and looked like vandalism. Id. at 1226. Thereafter, the plaintiffs asked the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry to take soil samples around the five dying trees. Id. The test results showed the presence of Bromacil, a chemical that was not available to the general public. Id. Following the release of the testing data, the plaintiffs sued the defendant, alleging that he had killed their trees. Id. In the defendant's deposition, he testified he had been in the citrus industry for twenty-seven years and that he was certified by the State of Louisiana to obtain and apply commercial chemicals used in the industry. Id. On April 8, 2002, the defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the trial court later granted. Id. The plaintiffs' appealed. Id.

Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that summary judgment was inappropriately granted because the factual inferences reasonably drawn from the circumstantial evidence presented by the plaintiffs were to be construed in their favor. Id. at 1228.

Analysis and Holdings

In granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the trial court stated that the plaintiffs' evidence had to exclude any other reasonable hypotheses with a fair amount of certainty. Id. It also determined that without direct evidence or stronger circumstantial evidence of the defendant's involvement in the destruction of the trees, there was no reason for litigation to proceed. Id. The instant court disagreed, stating that the plaintiffs were not required to provide "[e]yewitness or other direct testimony," and that the plaintiffs had "the right to rely on circumstantial evidence related to previous actions by [the defendant] to try to demonstrate at trial by a preponderance of the evidence that he did, in fact, poison their trees." Id. In conclusion, the court stated that "factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be construed in favor of the party opposing the motion and all doubt must be resolved in the opponent's favor." Id. For this reason, the court reversed and remanded the trial court's holding. Id.

The case was decided on February 26, 2003.