GEORGE A. BATISTE Vs. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
GEORGE A. BATISTE * NO. 2000-CA-2027 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* McKAY, J. DISSENTS WITH REASONS I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion and would reverse the trial court’s granting of summary judgment. The trial court granted the summary judgment on the basis that a plaintiff must produce expert testimony in order to prevail in a product liability claim. However, the burden required for a summary judgment is “that there is no genuine issue as to material fact, and that mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Short v. Griffin, 96-0361 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/21/96), 682 So.2d 249. Furthermore, Mr. Batiste submits that he has alleged a head on collision with the concrete rail of I-10 and a rear end collision with the rail of I-10 at a speed of approximately 50 m.p.h. The defense experts, however, have indicated that they do not believe that this was a front end collision or a rear end collision, and therefore the air bag functioned properly by not deploying. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to what kind of collision did happen. Accordingly, summary judgment as to whether the air bags deployed properly was improper.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
