Guidry v. Bernard
155 So. 3d 162
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- On October 10, 2010, Bernard and Guidry collided at/near the Carmel Drive–Louisiana Avenue intersection; each party blamed the other for failing to yield.
- Bernard testified she entered the intersection on a green light in the far-right lane; Guidry testified he turned right and was struck (his testimony varied on whether the impact occurred during the turn or after completing it).
- Trial court found both parties "very credible," concluded evidence was in equipoise, and denied recovery to both parties.
- On rehearing the appellate majority concluded Guidry’s testimony was internally inconsistent and therefore not credible on the key issue of the traffic signal; it accepted Bernard’s account and assigned Guidry 100% fault.
- Bernard sought damages for right shoulder and trapezius myofascial pain; the court reviewed her medical history (prior 2008 accident and later 2013 accident) to apportion causation and related charges.
- Appellate court awarded Bernard $20,000 (general damages), $6,185.40 (medical expenses), and $840 (lost wages); Judge Amy dissented, arguing the trial court’s credibility-based factual findings were not manifestly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability — who had green light / causation | Bernard: she had green; Guidry turned into her lane and caused collision | Guidry: he had green; collision occurred after he completed turn or Bernard changed lanes | Majority: Guidry’s testimony was internally inconsistent and not credible; Bernard credible; Guidry 100% at fault (judgment reversed and rendered for Bernard) |
| Credibility standard / appellate review | Bernard: appellate court may reject testimony when objectively inconsistent | Guidry: trial court’s credibility findings entitled to deference under manifest-error rule | Majority: where testimony is internally inconsistent or contradicted by objective evidence, appellate court may overturn; applied here to reject Guidry’s light-color claim |
| Damages — causation of cervical findings | Bernard: cervical/shoulder findings relate to 2010 accident | Defendants: later injuries/earlier 2008 accident and 2013 accident break causal chain | Court: awarded shoulder/trapezius damages to 2010 accident; declined to attribute cervical MRI changes to 2010 accident |
| Medical expenses & apportionment | Bernard: seeks $11,416.29 in medicals | Defendants: exclude unrelated visits and post-2013-accident charges | Court: reduced amount by unrelated charges and post-2013 treatment; awarded $6,185.40 |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for appellate review of factfinder credibility and when inconsistencies permit reversal)
- Canter v. Koehring, 283 So.2d 716 (La. 1973) (factors for fault and damages in negligence cases informing credibility assessments)
- Snider v. Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 130 So.3d 922 (La. 2013) (reaffirming manifest-error / clearly-wrong standard and deference to credibility findings)
- Stobart v. State, through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (framework for appellate review of factual findings)
- Miller v. Leonard, 588 So.2d 79 (La. 1991) (burden of proof in negligence actions)