For the reasons expressed in Pete v. Barron, 22-143 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/12/2022), ––– So.3d ––––, we find that a reasonable factfinder could not reach any other conclusion than that Iris Barron (Barron) was free from fault in causing this accident. Barron and Progressive Security Insurance Company (Progressive) met their burden of proving that no genuine issues of material fact exist regarding her lack of fault, and Peyton Davison (Davison) and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) failed to produce any evidence to controvert this showing. The trial courts grant of the motion for summary judgment in favor of Barron and Progressive is hereby affirmed. All costs of this appeal, which total $2,730.02, are assessed to Davison and DOTD.
AFFIRMED.
I would reverse the trial courts summary judgment rendered in favor of Ms. Barron and Progressive for the same reasons expressed in my dissent in Pete v. Barron, 22-143 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/12/22), ––– So.3d ––––.
WILSON, Judge.
SAVOIE, J., dissents and assigns reasons.