King v. State Farm Insurance Co.
104 So. 3d 33
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Three-vehicle crash: Whitlock rear-ended Williams’ truck, Whitlock’s car spun, King’s car then struck Whitlock’s car.
- Whitlock and State Farm appeal trial court ruling finding King not at fault and awarding $30,000 general damages to King.
- Accident occurred about 6:50 a.m. on Nov. 19, 2003 on Highway 34 in Ouachita Parish; Whitlock cited for careless operation.
- Plaintiff King filed suit on Nov. 18, 2004; defendants claimed King 100% at fault and asserted sudden emergency defense; reconventional demands followed.
- Trial on Aug. 24, 2011 resulted in a written judgment April 25, 2011 (appears in opinion as Oct. 25, 2011) allocating 100% fault to Whitlock and finding King free of fault with specified damages; State Farm bears costs.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding no manifest error in fault allocation and affirming general damages of $30,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fault allocation between Whitlock and King | King argues Whitlock caused the initial rear-end collision and emergency that led to second impact. | Whitlock/State Farm argue King had time and distance to avoid and should bear fault. | Whitlock 100% at fault; King not at fault. |
| Sudden emergency doctrine applicability | King contends no sudden emergency by lead vehicle; Whitlock cannot escape fault. | Defendants invoke sudden emergency to shift fault reduction. | Doctrine considered as a factual factor; not controlling to shift fault to King. |
| Damages award reasonableness (general damages) | Award of $30,000 for broken foot deemed excessive. | Discretionary award supported by continuing pain nearly seven years later. | No abuse of discretion; $30,000 affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transportation & Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard for manifest error review of factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (great deference to trial court credibility findings in appellate review)
- Holland v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 973 So.2d 134 (La.App.2d Cir. 12/5/2007) (sudden emergency doctrine as a defense to liability; cannot lower pre-emergency standard of care)
- Ebarb v. Matlock, 69 So.3d 1164 (La. 2011) (emergency doctrine applicable after emergency arises; must be used as consideration in fault allocation)
- Manuel v. St. John the Baptist Parish School Board, 734 So.2d 766 (La.App.5th Cir. 3/30/1999) (emphasizes the role of factual considerations in fault assessment)