210 So. 3d 321
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Dec. 25, 2004, during an unusual freeze in Terrebonne Parish, Donald Greene was struck on Prospect Bridge after vehicles encountered ice; two other occupants were killed and Greene seriously injured.
- DOTD maintenance crews in Houma had prior weather advisories and received reports of icing on nearby elevated roadways (Highway 90 overpasses and Twin Span) in the early morning hours before the 5:10 a.m. accident.
- A six-person DOTD crew, led by superintendent Leonard Naville, assembled ~3:30 a.m., responded to an accident/icing report on Highway 90/311 (~11 miles away), sanded that overpass for about an hour, and later loaded barricades; Prospect Bridge remained open and was not closed before the accident.
- Plaintiffs’ meteorology and traffic-safety experts testified the weather was uniform and Prospect Bridge likely iced by ~2:20–3:00 a.m.; plaintiffs argued DOTD had constructive notice and could/should have barricaded priority bridges earlier.
- Trial court found DOTD had constructive notice of ice on Prospect Bridge by 3:15 a.m. and that Naville’s response (not dividing crew and sanding instead of promptly barricading/closing other priority locations) was unreasonable; judgments awarded plaintiffs damages, later modified to cap general damages and add future medical expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity under La. R.S. 9:2798.1 (policymaking/discretionary acts) | DOTD's decisions were operational (maintenance) and not immune | DOTD argued actions were discretionary/policy-making and thus immune | Court: Actions were operational (maintenance); immunity not available |
| Qualification of DOTD expert (Tekell) on iced-road maintenance | Plaintiffs: Tekell lacked special ice-event credentials; trial court limited his special-ice expertise | DOTD: Tekell had sufficient traffic/maintenance experience including ice events | Court: No abuse of discretion — Tekell qualified as traffic/transportation expert; limited special-ice label was semantic |
| Constructive notice of ice & adequacy of DOTD response | Plaintiffs: Weather forecasts + reports of icing nearby gave DOTD constructive notice by ~3:15 a.m.; DOTD unreasonably failed to barricade Prospect Bridge in time | DOTD: Mere possibility of ice ≠ constructive notice; even with notice, no sufficient time or choices were reasonable; trial court impermissibly used hindsight | Court: Under manifest-error standard, record reasonably supports finding DOTD had constructive notice by 3:15 a.m. and failed to take reasonable corrective measures (crew should have been split; sanding was a waste of time) |
| Post-judgment amendment awarding future medical expenses | Greene’s motion was titled "Motion to Amend," but substance sought substantive change to judgment | DOTD: May 12 judgment was final; trial court lacked authority to add future medical expenses | Court: Pleading filed within delays was properly treated as a motion for new trial; trial court could amend judgment and award future medical expenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1 (La. 1989) (two-step test for discretionary-function immunity)
- Gregor v. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Co., 851 So.2d 959 (La. 2003) (discussion of Fowler analysis; operational vs. policy decisions)
- Lee v. State Through Department of Transportation and Development, 701 So.2d 676 (La. 1997) (statutory framework aligning negligence and strict-liability claims re: notice under La. R.S. 9:2800)
- Stobart v. State through Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard for reviewing factual findings — manifest error)
- Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 193 So.3d 1110 (La. 2015) (clarifies deferential manifest-error review standard)