251 So. 3d 601
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On May 18, 2015, Tammy Bloxham was rear-ended while driving west on Hwy. 511 in Bossier City; Andy L. Gibbs Jr., driving a commercial tanker for 31 Energy, struck the back of her SUV.
- Bloxham sued Gibbs, 31 Energy, and its insurer alleging vicarious liability and negligent hiring/maintenance; defendants pleaded comparative fault and requested jury trial.
- Bloxham moved for partial summary judgment on liability and lack of her comparative fault, relying on the statutory following-too-close presumption and Gibbs's deposition admission that he "ran into the back of this car" and was "not blaming anybody but" himself.
- Defendants opposed, pointing to portions of Gibbs’s deposition, his employer incident report, and the official crash report saying he swerved to change lanes and that the lead vehicle stopped/suddenly changed lanes, arguing these facts could show Bloxham negligently changed lanes and thus comparative fault.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for Bloxham, applying the presumption of the following driver’s negligence and finding Gibbs was sole cause.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the summary-judgment record contained triable issues about whether Bloxham’s lane change/sudden movement could constitute comparative fault and that the court improperly resolved credibility/conflicting factual accounts on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on liability is proper when rear driver admits fault but other evidence suggests lead driver's maneuver may have contributed | Bloxham: Gibbs's admissions and presumption from a rear-end collision establish his sole negligence and preclude comparative fault | Defendants: Gibbs's deposition, incident report, and crash report indicate Bloxham may have changed into Gibbs's lane or stopped suddenly, creating a genuine issue of comparative fault | Reversed: factual dispute exists about lead-driver conduct; summary judgment improper because court impermissibly weighed credibility and resolved competing versions of events |
| Whether the following-driver presumption is irrebuttable on summary judgment | Bloxham: presumption and Gibbs's admissions support judgment as matter of law | Defendants: presumption can be rebutted by proof of unpredictable or unsafe acts by the lead driver (sudden/lane change) | Held: presumption is rebuttable; here evidence could support comparative fault, so presumption did not mandate summary judgment |
| Whether a court may resolve credibility conflicts (Gibbs's admission vs. other factual statements) on summary judgment | Bloxham: court reasonably relied on Gibbs's admission and supervisor’s concurrence | Defendants: court cannot make credibility determinations on summary judgment | Held: court erred by effectively making credibility calls; credibility/inferences must be drawn for non-mover on summary judgment |
| Whether conclusory defenses suffice to create a genuine issue | Bloxham: compares this case to Ebarb where defendant’s conclusory affidavit failed to create an issue | Defendants: advance specific factual statements (deposition, report) suggesting lead-driver fault | Held: distinguished Ebarb; where defendant presents specific competing facts (not mere conclusory affidavit), a triable issue exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La. 1987) (presumption of negligence for following driver in rear-end collisions)
- Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transp., 35 So.3d 230 (La. 2010) (statutory following-too-close rule and related presumption)
- Cheairs v. State, 861 So.2d 536 (La. 2003) (presumption can be rebutted by evidence of unforeseeable sudden emergency caused by lead driver)
- Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Sunbeam Corp., 755 So.2d 226 (La. 2000) (court may not resolve credibility on summary judgment; must favor non-mover’s inferences)
- Ebarb v. Matlock, 69 So.3d 516 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2011) (conclusory affidavit insufficient to create genuine issue to defeat summary judgment)
- Rodgers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins., 168 So.3d 375 (La. 2015) (de novo appellate review standard for summary judgment)