Domingo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
54 So. 3d 74
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Two consolidated suits arising from a November 22, 2005 Lake Pontchartrain Causeway accident in Jefferson Parish.
- Erdman’s vehicle rear-ended by Romero’s van; Erdman’s car then struck Domingo’s truck, pushing Domingo into the guardrail.
- Romero’s van was owned by Avis and insured by Pathfinder; Romero was employed by Turbo Group, Inc., with the vehicle leased to Turbo employees Sucato/Gentile.
- Turbo and Commerce insured Romero, Sucato, Gentile, and Turbo; Commerce policy covered up to $1 million.
- Domingos and Erdman moved for summary judgment on Romero’s liability, Turbo’s vicarious liability, and Commerce’s insurer liability; the court granted partial final judgments and Erdman’s claim against State Farm was resolved with a concurring motion; the appellate court affirmed and costs were assessed against the appellants (Sucato, Gentile, Turbo, Commerce).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Romero is liable as the rear-end collision motorist | Domingos/Erdman argue Romero rear-ended Erdman, causing Erdman to hit Domingo; riders contend Erdman was not negligent and Romero is at fault. | Sucato/Gentile/Turbo/Commerce dispute sequence and fault, arguing fact questions prevent summary judgment. | Romero presumed negligent as rear-end collision; movants failed to rebut presumption; summary judgment affirmed recognizing Romero's fault |
| Whether there are genuine issues about Erdman’s negligence or lack thereof | Erdman asserts she stopped and was pushed into Domingo by Romero; she seeks dismissal of Erdman’s fault. | Defendants challenge Erdman’s version and contend other evidence creates material facts for trial. | Court found Erdman not negligent as per evidence; summary judgment in Erdman’s favor affirmed |
| Whether the trial court properly excluded certain evidence (police report/officer testimony) in granting summary judgment | Appellants argue admissible evidence supports their theory of fault and should preclude summary judgment. | Erdman argues police report/officer testimony are inadmissible or immaterial and should not defeat summary judgment. | La. courts exclude hearsay/lay-opinion from non-witness officer; no reversible error found; evidence properly limited in summary judgment analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruthardt v. Tennant, 252 La. 1041, 215 So.2d 805 (La. 1968) (traffic-court convictions not admissible to prove negligence in civil cases)
- State v. Alexander, 430 So.2d 621 (La. 1983) (lay witness limitations; officer testimony cannot opine on liability without qualification)
- Ly v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections, 633 So.2d 197 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993) (sudden emergency doctrine; exceptions to negligence)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La. 1987) (rear-end collision presumption of negligence by following motorist)
- Hadley v. Doe, 626 So.2d 747 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1993) (burden to exonerate oneself from presumption of negligence)
- Staehle v. Marino, 201 So.2d 212 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1967) (last car in chain reaction may be negligent)
- Deville v. Aetna Ins. Co., 191 So.2d 324 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1967) (police reports containing hearsay excluded)