90 So. 3d 522
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bell manufactured the helicopter involved in the August 19, 2004 forced Gulf landing and PHI operated it at all pertinent times.
- Three passengers—Richard Tucker, Kyle Myers, and Michael LeBoeuf—filed separate injury actions; Tucker settled with Bell and PHI, leaving PHI’s redhibition claim against Bell as the core issue.
- Trial court in Tucker held PHI without fault and Bell fully liable for the accident due to a redhibitory defect; judgment affirmed by appellate courts and Louisiana Supreme Court denial of writs.
- Myers and LeBoef filed actions against PHI, National Union, and Bell; Myers sought consolidation and the court later addressed res judicata implications after Tucker’s outcome.
- Post-Tucker, Myers obtained partial summary judgment declaring plaintiffs free from fault and the district court found Bell’s liability preclusive by res judicata; this court affirmed, remanding for damages trial.
- Bell appealed the March 22, 2011 damages-order and the LeBoeuf res judicata ruling; the appellate court affirmed, concluding law-of-the-case and res judicata principles foreclose liability issues and proceed to damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Myers I controls as law of the case | Bell argues Myers I was wrongly decided and should not govern. | Appellees contend Myers I is law of the case and binding. | Law of the case; Myers I controls and supports damages-only trial. |
| Whether LeBoeuf properly granted res judicata | LeBoeuf challenges the res judicata ruling as unfairly barring liability issues. | PHI and LeBoeuf contend Myers I and Tucker preclude liability claims. | No error; res judicata appropriate as to liability. |
| Whether punitive damages should be tried with compensatory damages | Bell asserts separation is required; punitive damages should be tried separately. | Plaintiffs argue Article 1562 allows joint consideration with liability and damages. | Trial court properly ordered damages and punitive damages to be considered together. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Louisiana, 43 So.3d 207 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (law-of-the-case and res judicata effects reaffirmed)
- Tucker v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 9 So.3d 966 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (trial court's redhibition findings and liability framework)
- Duffy v. Si-Sifh Corporation, 726 So.2d 438 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1999) (broader res judicata principles and party representation)
- Day v. Campbel-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corporation, 256 So.2d 105 (La. 1971) (policy rationale for law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Bank One National Association v. Velten, 917 So.2d 454 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2005) (law-of-the-case doctrine in appellate context)