Marable v. Empire Truck Sales of Louisiana, LLC
221 So. 3d 880
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- In May 2012 Connie Marable was pinned under the rear tires of a Freightliner tractor while running alongside it to shut off the ignition; she suffered catastrophic, permanent injuries (anoxic brain injury) and was interdicted within one year.
- Suit was filed by her curator; Empire (repair shop), Wayne Marable (owner/operator), KLLM (employer) and later Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA, manufacturer) were defendants; Empire was exonerated at trial.
- A jury (April 2016) found the tractor unreasonably dangerous in design, apportioned fault 90% to DTNA and 10% to Wayne Marable, and awarded approximately $51.45 million (special and general damages).
- DTNA moved for JNOV on liability and damages (denied); on appeal DTNA also raised a prescription exception arguing plaintiff’s LPLA claim against DTNA was time‑barred because she added DTNA more than one year after the accident and interruption by suit against Empire failed when Empire was exonerated.
- The Fourth Circuit held prescription did not bar the claim because La. C.C. art. 3492 tolls ("does not run against") interdicts in permanent‑disability LPLA actions; Connie became an interdict within one year, so prescription ceased running.
- The court affirmed denial of JNOV on liability and damages, finding reasonable evidence (conflicting expert testimony, driver’s manual warnings, and life‑care testimony) supporting the jury’s findings on foreseeability, alternative design (dual park brakes), risk/utility, proximate cause, life expectancy, and quantum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prescription under La. C.C. art. 3492 | Prescription ceased when Marable was interdicted within one year; tolling continues while interdict | "Does not run" means prescription never commences unless already an interdict at time of injury; otherwise creates imprescriptible cause | Tolling applies when interdicted within one year; exception of prescription denied |
| Foreseeability / reasonably anticipated use (LPLA) | DTNA’s manual instructs drivers to idle engine and perform outside inspections; leaving vehicle idling unattended is foreseeable use | The specific event (spontaneous shift into gear) was unprecedented and unforeseeable | Jury reasonably found use foreseeable; finding not manifestly erroneous |
| Defect in design / alternative design (dual park brakes) | Dual park brakes (available option) would have prevented movement regardless of how truck went into gear; modest cost/feasible | Dual brakes would not have prevented movement and would create safety/utility problems; single park brake met FMVSS and industry practice | Jury could credit plaintiff experts; evidence permitted finding of an available, effective alternative and satisfied risk‑utility balancing |
| Proximate cause (intervening cause argument) | Lack of dual park brakes was a substantial factor; vehicle movement was foreseeable consequence of design/inadequate protection | Unknown spontaneous gear shift was an intervening, superseding cause breaking causal chain | Court held single‑park configuration could be proximate cause; jury’s causation finding not manifestly erroneous |
| Damages (life care & general damages excessive) | Expert life‑care plans supported long survival (up to 85) and projected costs; severity/duration justify large general awards | Awards are grossly excessive and reflect sympathy rather than evidence | Jury’s awards were within broad discretion; life expectancy and life‑care evidence supported future medical award; general damages not excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. New Orleans Public Serv., 583 So.2d 829 (La. 1991) (standard for JNOV: verdict reversible only when evidence so one‑sided reasonable jurors could not disagree)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest‑error standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Davis v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 774 So.2d 84 (La. 2000) (two‑part review of JNOV denial on appeal)
- Hernandez v. Chalmette Med. Ctr., 826 So.2d 641 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002) (holding that post‑trial finding of no solidary obligation permits prescription defense by untimely defendant)
- Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La. 1993) (deference and scope of appellate review for quantum of general damages)