152 So. 3d 909
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Construction of a 62,888‑lb preassembled rebar cage for column W‑2 on the Huey P. Long Bridge collapsed after cranes were detached; two J.L. Steel employees died.
- DOTD hired Modjeski & Masters (M & M) as design engineer; KMTC‑JV (general contractor joint venture) supervised construction; Kiewit Engineering Co. (KECO) prepared a guy‑wiring plan that was not followed in the field.
- Plaintiffs sued KMTC‑JV (statutory employer), KECO, and M & M for wrongful death and survival damages; trial court found the decedent a statutory employee and limited recovery against KMTC‑JV to workers’ compensation unless plaintiffs proved an intentional act.
- Jury found KMTC‑JV liable for an "intentional act" (80% fault), KECO negligent (10%), and M & M negligent (10%), awarding $13 million; defendants appealed.
- Appellate court found trial court erred by admitting evidence of subsequent remedial measures, other accidents, and privileged communications, conducted a de novo review as to KMTC‑JV and M & M, reversed KMTC‑JV’s intentional‑act finding (workers’ comp exclusive remedy), affirmed KECO’s 10% fault, reversed M & M’s liability, and substantially reduced total damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KMTC‑JV committed an "intentional act" removing workers’ comp exclusivity | KMTC‑JV knowingly permitted hazardous methods and thus intended or was substantially certain harm would occur | KMTC‑JV acted negligently (even grossly) but did not desire or know harm was substantially certain | Reversed jury: KMTC‑JV did not know harm was substantially certain; exclusive remedy is workers’ compensation |
| Admissibility of evidence (subsequent remedial measures, prior accidents, attorney‑client/work product material) | Evidence tended to show knowledge, control, feasibility and impeach safety reputation | Admission was prejudicial; motions in limine preserved objections | Court found legal error admitting such evidence; errors tainted verdict requiring de novo review for affected claims |
| KECO’s negligence for guy‑wiring plan (causation despite plan not followed) | KECO’s plan omitted necessary tension directives and stability analysis; KECO should have ensured stability | KECO’s scope was limited and its plan wasn’t followed so it cannot be held responsible | Affirmed: jury reasonably found KECO 10% at fault; evidence supports negligence and causation |
| M & M’s duty to review erection means/methods and expert contract interpretation | Plaintiffs’ expert: M & M should have reviewed contractor means/methods and contract duties | M & M: contract did not require review of erection procedures; expert improperly opined on contract meaning; no local standard of care proven | Reversed: M & M had no duty to review erection procedures; allowing expert contract interpretation was legal error and plaintiffs failed to prove applicable local standard of care |
| Damages (excessiveness and calculation of economic loss, including worker’s undocumented status) | Large jury awards reflected severe loss, pain, and future support needs | Defendants argued awards were excessive; undocumented status bears on lost‑wage calculation | Majority reduced awards substantially (total amended award $2,380,000 before allocation), held undocumented status relevant to damages calculation but not to liability; economic loss reduced based on consecutive U.S. wages |
Key Cases Cited
- Bazley v. Tortorich, 397 So.2d 475 (La. 1981) (defines "intent" and substantial‑certainty test for intentional tort)
- Reeves v. Structural Preservation Sys., 731 So.2d 208 (La. 1999) (emphasizes narrow scope of intentional‑act exception; knowledge of risk is insufficient)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for manifest error review of factual findings)
- McLean v. Hunter, 495 So.2d 1298 (La. 1986) (consequential evidentiary error taints verdict and justifies de novo review)
- Wingfield v. State, ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Dev., 835 So.2d 785 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (discusses standards for reviewing factual findings and damages)