246 So. 3d 785
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Dec. 5, 2012 Robert Murphy (motorcycle) and Shauntal Savannah (car) collided at a Y‑type intersection of LA Hwy 538 (Old Mooringsport Road) and Ravendale Drive when Savannah turned left into Murphy's lane. Savannah admitted she did not see Murphy and accepted fault.
- The Murphys sued Savannah (later settled/dismissed) and the Louisiana DOTD, alleging the intersection's acute (<20°) design created an unreasonably dangerous condition and that DOTD had notice and failed to remedy it.
- DOTD moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits from DOTD engineer Kevin Blunck (no complaints/maintenance records) and Dr. Joseph Blaschke (MUTCD compliance; sufficient sight distances; sole cause Savannah’s failure to yield).
- The Murphys opposed with an affidavit from traffic engineer V.O. Tekell, Jr., who described the intersection as an extremely acute Y‑intersection, cited longstanding AASHO/AASHTO warnings that such acute angles are hazardous and prone to left‑turn crashes, and said the layout contributed to the crash.
- The trial court struck exhibits attached to Tekell's affidavit (no proffer by plaintiffs) and granted DOTD's summary judgment; the Murphys appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issue of fact exists re: DOTD liability for defective intersection design | Tekell’s affidavit and authorities create a reasonable inference the acute angle made the intersection unreasonably dangerous and contributed to the crash | DOTD’s experts showed MUTCD compliance, sufficient sight distance, and that Savannah’s gross negligence solely caused the crash | Reversed: Tekell’s affidavit raised genuine issues of material fact on whether the design was unreasonably dangerous (trial required) |
| Whether DOTD had notice (actual or constructive) of the alleged defect | Longstanding AASHO/AASHTO warnings (50–70+ years) about acute‑angle intersections support constructive notice | DOTD engineer’s records showed no complaints or maintenance issues within 180 days; no specific notice | Reversed: Tekell’s statements created a factual dispute about constructive notice sufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Causation: did intersection design contribute despite left‑turn presumption | Design increased exposure and may have obscured view (truck in front), so DOTD may share fault under comparative negligence | Savannah’s failure to yield was sole cause; left‑turn presumption of negligence supports DOTD judgment | Reversed: Conflict between experts creates a genuine issue of fact as to causation; jury/trier must decide |
| Admissibility of Tekell’s attached exhibits | Murphys argued Tekell incorporated exhibits by reference and could rely on them at trial; exhibits authenticated sufficiently for summary judgment | DOTD moved to strike exhibits as unauthenticated and not authorized under summary judgment rules | Affirmed re: exhibits: plaintiffs failed to proffer excluded documents on appeal, so exclusion was not reversible error, but exclusion did not eliminate Tekell’s affidavit as raising factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (standard of review and burdens on summary judgment)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (trial court’s role on summary judgment; genuine issue definition)
- Larson v. XYZ Ins. Co., 226 So.3d 412 (La. 2017) (summary judgment burdens and non‑movant response requirements)
- Fontenot v. Patterson Ins., 23 So.3d 259 (La. 2009) (elements to hold DOTD liable for defective thing in its custody)
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013) (risk‑utility test and jury’s role in determining unreasonable risk of harm)
- Cormier v. Comeaux, 748 So.2d 1123 (La. 1999) (DOTD not required to upgrade old highways to modern standards but must fix unreasonably dangerous conditions)