159 So. 3d 1144
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Three-car rear-end collision on March 16, 2012, in stop-and-go traffic: Bouzon rear-ended Norris, pushing Norris into Leblanc. Bouzon received a citation for careless operation.
- Leblanc sued Bouzon and his insurer, Norris and Farm Bureau (her insurer), and Leblanc’s insurer; Norris and Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment on liability.
- Defendants argued Bouzon, as the following driver, is presumed negligent and cannot rebut that presumption; trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Norris and Farm Bureau with prejudice.
- Leblanc argued a material factual dispute existed because Norris allegedly struck Leblanc twice (once before Bouzon’s impact and once after), which could shift fault to Norris.
- Depositions and officer statements showed Norris and Leblanc were stopped and that Bouzon admitted fault in statements; no credible evidence supported a prior collision by Norris into Leblanc.
- Trial court and appellate court held Bouzon’s presumption of negligence stood and Norris/Farm Bureau were not liable; sudden-emergency defense did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on Norris/Farm Bureau's liability was improper | Leblanc: disputed material fact — Norris hit Leblanc once before Bouzon hit her, so Norris shares fault | Norris/Farm Bureau: record shows Norris was stopped and Bouzon rear-ended her, creating presumption of Bouzon's negligence | Affirmed: no genuine factual dispute; Norris stopped and Bouzon is presumed negligent |
| Whether the following-driver presumption of negligence was rebutted | Leblanc: fault could be transferred to Norris if she moved into Leblanc before Bouzon’s impact | Defendants: testimony and officer report show no evidence Norris struck Leblanc first | Held: presumption unrebutted; Bouzon failed to show he had control, lookout, or safe distance |
| Applicability of sudden-emergency doctrine to Bouzon | Leblanc: (implicitly) Norris’ prior movement could create a sudden emergency | Defendants: plaintiffs were able to stop; circumstances do not create sudden emergency | Held: sudden-emergency doctrine inapplicable where lead cars safely stopped; Bouzon cannot invoke it |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment standard applied | Leblanc: factual disputes preclude summary judgment | Defendants: movant showed absence of factual support for plaintiff’s claim elements; non-movant failed to produce evidence | Held: de novo review supports trial court—no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Stalsby, 78 So.3d 873 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2011) (following driver presumed negligent in rear-end collisions; burden to rebut by showing control, lookout, safe distance)
- Ebarb v. Matlock, 69 So.3d 516 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2011) (three-car chain-reaction: last driver who precipitates collision is negligent; sudden-emergency doctrine inapplicable when preceding vehicles stopped safely)
- Graffia v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 6 So.3d 270 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2009) (presumption that following motorist is at fault; comparative fault still applies if lead driver contributed)
- Supreme Servs. & Specialty Co., Inc. v. Sonny Greer, Inc., 958 So.2d 634 (La. 2007) (standard of review and summary judgment burden rules in Louisiana)
- Jagneaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov’t Parks & Recreation, 128 So.3d 681 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2013) (materiality analysis for facts in summary judgment context)