Ermert v. Hartford Insurance Co.
Louisiana Supreme Court
559 So. 2d 467 (1990)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Kenneth Decareaux (defendant) accidentally shot Karl F. Ermert III (plaintiff) while at a hunting camp. Decareaux and five of his friends (collectively, the hunting group) (defendants) built the camp. Decareaux was president of and majority stockholder in Nu-Arrow Fence Company (Nu-Arrow) (defendant), a company that sold and installed fences, and developing new business was one of Decareaux’s primary duties. Decareaux used the camp to entertain Nu-Arrow’s employees and preferred clients, and these clients then referred business to Nu-Arrow. Decareaux sold fences to almost every other member of the hunting group, and they also referred business to Nu-Arrow. On the morning of the accident, Ermert, Decareaux, four other men from the hunting group were staying at the camp. Decareaux loaded his gun while in the camphouse and accidentally fired, hitting Ermert’s foot. Ermert sued Decareaux; Decareaux’s homeowner insurer, Hartford Insurance Co. (defendant); the hunting group; and Nu-Arrow. The trial court found Decareaux and Hartford liable, Nu-Arrow vicariously liable, and the hunting group not liable. The appellate court reversed as to Nu-Arrow’s liability, holding that Decareaux was on a personal pursuit, and affirmed the remainder of the trial court’s judgment. Ermert appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dennis, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Marcus, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
