GLORIA CHATMAN Vs. SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AT NEW ORLEANS, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS, THE SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE AND VICTOR UKPOLO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
GLORIA CHATMAN * NO. 2015-CA-1179 VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AT NEW ORLEANS, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS, THE SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE AND VICTOR UKPOLO * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* TOBIAS, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS. I respectfully dissent, finding that it is inappropriate to affirm the trial court’s judgment. I agree with Judge Ledet’s dissent that the errors of the trial judge interdict the jury’s verdict and therefore interdict the trial court’s judgment. That being said, the proffered choices for this court are either de novo review by this court or a remand for a new jury trial. However, I respectfully disagree with my dissenting colleague that a remand is appropriate or even necessary. I find that based upon the facts of this case, a de novo review by this court would adequately result in an appropriate decision and judgment. No significant questions of fact are presented for which the trier of fact has to make any credibility calls based upon an eyeballing of the witnesses. I find that Ragas v. Argonaut Southwest Ins. Co., 388 So.2d 707 (La. 1980) and Wegener v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 10-0810 (La. 3/15/11), 60 So.3d 1220, require this court to conduct a de novo review and render a judgment based thereon. I do not find that 1 the other jurisprudence cited by the majority or my colleague’s dissent would come close to requiring a remand for a new jury trial. To me, the underlying facts are clear. Ms. Chapman, an adult, was stabbed in the eye by her close friend and handpicked roommate, an adult, in their room in the college residence facility of the defendant. The record adequately reflects what Southern University did and did not do to protect Ms. Chapman. The duty of Southern University is readily clear from the record on appeal and thus presents no impediment to an appropriate adjudication and determination of the facts and damages, if any, to which Ms. Chapman may be entitled. The remand and retrial will waste significant time, energy, and resources. 2
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.
