Mitchell v. State, Department of Transportation & Development
2016 La. App. LEXIS 559
| La. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 14, 2007 a large pine tree located on property owned by Beverly Hill‑Hercules fell across U.S. Highway 80 in Ruston during a severe storm, crushing Mitchell’s car and causing serious neck and other injuries.
- Mitchell sued the property owner (Hercules), her insurer, and DOTD (which maintained the roadway/right‑of‑way); jury returned verdict for defendants after trial.
- Plaintiff’s experts (forestry) later opined the tree fell due to root deterioration/disease visible at the stump; defense experts and witnesses attributed the fall to a major windstorm and disputed observable disease prior to the fall.
- Plaintiff appealed arguing (1) the jury verdict was manifestly erroneous because the tree’s root disease should have put Hercules (and DOTD) on notice, and (2) the trial court erred by admitting deposition testimony of the Herculeses in lieu of live testimony in violation of a pretrial agreement (prejudicial surprise and lost cross‑examination).
- The court found the expert proof of a preexisting, observable root defect weak and speculative, that neither owner nor DOTD had constructive notice given the tree appeared healthy above ground, and that the storm provided a viable Act of God defense; it also held that admitting the Herculeses’ depositions was error but harmless given the available photographic evidence and expert reliance on those photos.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability: whether owner/DOTD had actual/constructive notice of tree defect | Mitchell: tree roots were diseased and visibly weakened before fall; owner/DOTD should have known and removed tree | Hercules/DOTD: tree appeared healthy above ground, was not leaning, and storm was intervening Act of God; no constructive notice | Court: affirmed jury — expert evidence was speculative; reasonable to conclude owner/DOTD lacked notice; storm was credible Act of God defense |
| Admissibility of depositions (Herculeses) | Mitchell: defendants breached pretrial agreement to have live/Skype testimony; depositions deprived him of meaningful cross‑examination and caused prejudice | Defense: Herculeses were unavailable (out of state >100 miles) so depositions admissible under La. C.C.P. art.1450/La. C.E. art.804 | Court: trial court should not have admitted depositions without proving unavailability, but error was harmless given photographic evidence and limited prejudice to plaintiff’s case |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. State, through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 654 So.2d 311 (La. 1995) (appellate standard and limits on DOTD liability for undiscovered dead/obscured trees)
- Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (manifest error / clearly wrong standard for appellate review of facts)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (deference to factfinder on credibility determinations)
- Thompson v. State of Louisiana, 701 So.2d 952 (La. 1997) (state duty limited to keeping roads reasonably safe; not guarantor of motorist safety; inspection/removal duties for dead trees)
- Brown v. Williams, 850 So.2d 1116 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2003) (owner’s duty to discover ruin/defect via reasonable care; standards for constructive notice)
- Caskey v. Merrick Const. Co., 949 So.2d 560 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2007) (no duty to walk around healthy trees or inspect every side for hidden defects)