Barrios v. Safeway Insurance Co.
97 So. 3d 1019
La.2012Background
- Jan. 19, 2009, ~7:30 p.m., Cuti’s vehicle struck Matthew Barrios and their dog Yellow on Main Street, Belle Chasse; Matthew injured, Yellow killed.
- Main Street is a residential two-way street with no sidewalks; posted speed limit 15 mph.
- Barrios walked Yellow with a leash easterly; Cuti’s vehicle also traveled easterly; Barrios faced away from the approaching car.
- Cuti admitted speeding (30–33 mph in a 15 mph zone) and looking away prior to impact; police report notes he looked away for a moment before striking.
- Matthew Barrios’ personal injury claim settled; Barrioses’ claim for loss of their dog proceeded to bench trial on briefs; Cuti died before deposition; trial court found Cuti solely at fault and awarded Ellen and Sonny Barrios $5,000 each for the dog’s loss and mental anguish.
- Safeway Insurance Company appeals the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was fault properly allocated to Cuti alone? | Barrios argued Cuti’s negligence caused the accident. | Safeway contends Barrios bore some fault under RS 32:216. | Yes; sole fault to Cuti; no manifest error. |
| Are damages for loss of the dog and accompanying mental anguish proper? | Barrios sought damages for loss of Yellow and related distress. | Safeway challenged the award as excessive and improperly categorized as property damage. | Damages affirmed as awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (manifest error standard of review for factual findings)
- Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (two-part test for reversing fact-finders’ determinations)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La.1987) (two-step test for appellate review of factual findings)
- Parker v. Continental Ins. Co., 341 So.2d 593 (La.App. 2 Cir.1977) (relevance of driver’s lookout and speed to fault)