James Carnez Burns v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, Lavette Dooley Gay, Arch Insurance Company

No. 56,689-CA · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · December 17, 2025 · No. 56,689-CA

Summary

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, affirmed summary judgment in favor of Asphalt Transit, Inc. and James Carnez Burns in a motor-vehicle accident dispute. The court held that Loomis Armored US, LLC failed to provide factual support establishing negligence by Burns sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court also rejected Loomis’s arguments that the district court improperly weighed evidence or relied on dashcam footage.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Hunter; Thompson; Robinson
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Decision date
December 17, 2025
Docket number
56,689-CA
Procedural posture
Loomis Armored US, LLC appealed a district court judgment granting summary judgment to third-party defendants Asphalt Transit, Inc. and James Carnez Burns and dismissing Loomis's reconventional and third-party claims with prejudice.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo under the same criteria governing the district court's determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate. The court may not weigh evidence, make credibility determinations, or evaluate testimony in deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.
Precedential value
Published opinion
Parties
Loomis Armored US, LLC v. James Carnez Burns, Asphalt Transit, Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

summary judgmentnegligencestandard of reviewappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

civil proceduretortsinsurance

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Asphalt Transit, Inc. and James Carnez Burns on Loomis's negligence and comparative-fault claims.
  2. Whether Loomis produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact concerning Burns's alleged failure to reduce speed, maintain control, or avoid the collision in wet conditions.
  3. Whether the district court impermissibly weighed evidence, made credibility determinations, or improperly relied on dashcam footage in granting summary judgment.

Holdings

  1. Summary judgment was properly granted because ATI and Burns established the absence of factual support for essential elements of Loomis's negligence claims, and Loomis failed to produce evidence showing that Burns's conduct caused or contributed to the accident.
  2. The district court did not impermissibly weigh the evidence, make credibility determinations, or improperly rely on the dashcam footage in deciding the summary-judgment motion.

Key quotations

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (at 5)
Mere conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation will not support a finding of genuine issue of material fact. (at 9)

Factual background

On September 2, 2022, an armored truck operated by Lavette Dooley Gay and a Peterbilt truck operated by James Carnez Burns collided near the Pines Road exit of Interstate 20 in Shreveport. Dashcam footage showed Burns traveling in the center lane and Gay traveling in the right lane before the Loomis truck swerved across lanes into Burns's path; Burns braked or released the accelerator and swerved left but could not avoid the collision. Gay and Burns attributed the event to an unidentified vehicle that entered Gay's lane, causing her to swerve, while Loomis argued that Burns was negligent for traveling too fast in heavy rain and failing to avoid the collision.

Procedural history

Burns sued Loomis Armored US, LLC, Lavette Dooley Gay, and Arch Insurance Company after a collision between an ATI tractor-trailer operated by Burns and a Loomis armored truck operated by Gay. Loomis answered and filed reconventional and third-party claims against Burns and ATI, alleging that Burns or other third parties caused the accident and seeking comparative-fault allocation. ATI moved for summary judgment, the district court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against ATI and Burns with prejudice, and Loomis appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…