Daigle v. City of Shreveport
78 So. 3d 753
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Daigle slipped on wet curb paint after city workers painted McNeil Street curbs; a cone marking wet paint was reportedly not at the fall site.
- Daigle sued City of Shreveport in Aug. 2005 for injuries; bench trial awarded past and future medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering.
- Sanctions case: City’s attorney Davis faced sanctions for an allegedly improper motion to recuse Judge Brun; sanctions were imposed personally.
- IMEs and continuances: City sought continuances and an IME for Daigle; trial court denied further continuance relying on prior schedule and Nunley’s deposition testimony.
- Appellate court amended the personal injury judgment, affirmed liability, and remanded for compliance with statutory caps and trust requirements; affirmed sanctions ruling.
- Costs of appeal allocated between City and Davis; majority remand instructions include $500,000 cap on general damages and creation of a reversionary trust per La. R.S. 13:5106 and related costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance/IME request as to Daigle | Daigle contends City failed to show good cause for continuance; trial court acted within discretion. | City asserts ongoing diligence and need for IME necessitates continuance under La. C.C.P. 1601-1602. | No abuse of discretion; continuance denied given prior delay and available testimony |
| Motion to recuse Judge Brun | Daigle argues recusal not required; judge credibility and non-witness status support denial. | City contends judge should recuse as he was named as a witness. | Trial court did not err in denying recusal |
| Liability for wet-curb condition | Daigle satisfied duty-risk analysis; City failed to warn and caused injury. | City disputes liability and argues proper warnings or defenses under exercise of care. | City liable; City failed to warn; wet paint caused the fall |
| Damages and caps/reversionary trust | Daigle seeks substantial general and special damages; future medical costs supported by unrebutted testimony. | City argues damages should be capped and governed by statutes; need for trust and proper costs accounting. | Remand for cap of $500,000 on general damages and establishment of reversionary trust; adjustment of court costs under RS 13:5112 |
| Sanctions against Davis | Davis acted in bad faith; sanctions proper under Art. 863. | Sanctions inappropriate or misapplied to attorney personally. | Sanctions upheld against Davis in his personal capacity |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Wimberly v. Giglio, 57 So. 3d 389 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2011) (great deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Leaf v. Leaf, 796 So. 2d 42 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2001) (IMEs require good cause and that alternative discovery exists)
- Williams v. City of Baton Rouge, 844 So. 2d 360 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (reasonableness of warnings in street construction contexts)
- Durkee v. City of Shreveport, 587 So. 2d 722 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1991) (unreasonable risk and liability balancing on public premises)
- Dunlap v. Madison Parish School Bd., 61 So. 3d 833 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2011) (treating physician testimony and weight in credibility)
- Allums v. Parish of Lincoln, 15 So. 3d 1117 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (damages assessment standards and public entity liability)
- Buchignani v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 938 So. 2d 1198 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2006) (factors for comparative fault and damages determination)
- Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., 341 So. 2d 332 (La. 1976) (abuse of discretion standard for general damages; appellate adjustment limited)