266 So. 3d 516
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Port City Glass & Paint performed a $575 windshield replacement for a 2015 GMC Yukon Denali after employee Simmie Brooks (a Winnsboro Auto salesman) arranged the repair while driving the vehicle back to the dealer. Invoice listed "Winnsboro Chrysler Dodge."
- Port City sued Brooks and the vehicle purchasers (the Wests) in city court on an open account; a default judgment was initially entered against Natasha West.
- Port City later amended to add Winnsboro Auto Ventures, LLC (Winnsboro Auto). Brooks testified he obtained approval from general manager Wayne Marceau to have Winnsboro pay for the repair. Winnsboro Auto contended its policy required preauthorization/purchase orders and denied liability.
- Trial court found Brooks credible, concluded Winnsboro Auto routinely allowed post-performance purchase orders in practice and that Marceau authorized the repair, and entered judgment against Winnsboro Auto for $575 plus $1,000 attorney fees. The court vacated the default judgment against Ms. West.
- Winnsboro Auto appealed, raising (1) exceptions of no cause of action and vagueness, (2) forced-to-trial claim, (3) hearsay admission, and (4) error as to liability of codefendants and vacatur of default judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exception of no cause of action (sufficiency of amended petition adding Winnsboro Auto) | Petition alleged Brooks, an employee, authorized installation on behalf of Winnsboro; thus claim states a cause of action. | Amended petition failed to allege any conduct by Winnsboro Auto or Brooks acting for Winnsboro; no legal basis alleged. | Denied; petition reasonably read to allege Winnsboro’s liability via employee authorization. |
| Exception of vagueness | Invoice and attachments gave sufficient particulars to notify Winnsboro of claim. | Petition vague as to basis for Winnsboro’s liability, hindering defense preparation. | Denied; petition plus invoice provided substantial particulars. |
| Hearsay (Brooks’ testimony that Marceau authorized repair) | Brooks’ testimony showed authorization; no timely objection to early testimony. | Testimony was hearsay and should have been excluded. | Overruled; no timely objection to admission, testimony became competent evidence. |
| Liability of codefendants and vacatur of default judgment vs. Ms. West | Port City conceded West was not liable; trial court vacated default after evidence showed Winnsboro was responsible. | Winnsboro argued co-defendants should share liability and that vacatur was error. | Affirmed; trial court’s credibility findings (Brooks over controller Roberts) supported sole liability of Winnsboro and vacatur as not erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pesnell v. Sessions, 246 So.3d 686 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (exception of no cause of action tests legal sufficiency of petition)
- Fink v. Bryant, 801 So.2d 346 (La.) (well-pleaded facts accepted as true on no-cause-of-action exception)
- Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 929 So.2d 1211 (La.) (liberal interpretation of pleadings to afford plaintiff day in court)
- Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So.2d 1212 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (failure to contemporaneously object to hearsay waives challenge; hearsay then considered competent)
- Stobart v. State, through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings and credibility determinations)