282 So.3d 1034
La.2019Background
- On Dec. 5, 2012, Robert Murphy (motorcycle) collided with Shauntal Savannah (car) at the Old Mooringsport Road (La. Hwy. 538) and Ravendale Drive intersection; Savannah admitted fault for failing to yield.
- Plaintiffs (Murphy and wife) sued DOTD alleging the intersection’s design was unreasonably dangerous and DOTD failed to warn or remedy the defect; claims against Savannah and insurer were later settled.
- DOTD moved for summary judgment supported by an engineer affidavit (Dr. Blaschke) reporting personal inspections, adequate sight distances, compliance with applicable design standards at time of construction, and that Savannah’s failure to yield was the sole cause.
- Plaintiffs opposed with an affidavit from traffic engineer V.O. Tekell, Jr., who called the intersection an acute-angle ("Y") intersection (<20°), cited long-standing AASHO/AASHTO guidance that such angles are hazardous, and opined the layout was a contributing factor. Tekell did not inspect the site personally and did not state the intersection was "unreasonably dangerous."
- District court granted DOTD’s summary judgment (affidavit of Tekell deemed conclusory and insufficient); Court of Appeal reversed; Supreme Court granted certiorari and reinstated district court judgment, reversing the court of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the intersection’s design created an unreasonable risk of harm | Tekell: acute-angle (Y) layout (<20°) is flawed and contributed to crash; AASHO guidance shows long-standing notice | Dr. Blaschke: personal inspection found no design defects, sufficient sight/stop distances, compliant at time of construction; crash caused by Savannah’s failure to yield | Held for DOTD: Tekell’s affidavit was conclusory, lacked site inspection/factual basis and did not show unreasonable danger; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether DOTD had notice of a defect | Plaintiffs: AASHO/AASHTO guidance gave long-standing constructive notice that acute angles are hazardous | DOTD: no record of complaints or maintenance issues in 180 days; no evidence intersection violated standards at time built | Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish constructive notice with factual support; DOTD met initial burden |
| Causation — whether design was cause-in-fact of injuries | Plaintiffs: design was a contributing factor to crash, permitting comparative fault | DOTD: expert tied cause to Savannah’s failure to yield; sight lines adequate per both drivers’ testimony | Held: Plaintiffs did not present factual evidence contradicting adequate sight distance or causation; no triable issue on causation shown |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment given competing expert affidavits | Plaintiffs: conflicting expert opinions create genuine issues of material fact; credibility/weight for jury | DOTD: moving party satisfied initial burden; opposing affidavit conclusory under La. Code Civ. P. art. 967(B) | Held: Summary judgment appropriate; court may grant when opposing expert opinion lacks factual foundation; dissenters argued the court improperly weighed competing experts |
Key Cases Cited
- Beer Indus. League of Louisiana v. City of New Orleans, 251 So. 3d 380 (La. 2018) (summary judgment standards and favored procedural use)
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So. 2d 544 (La. 2006) (standard for summary judgment review)
- Cormier v. Comeaux, 748 So. 2d 1123 (La. 1999) (elements for state custodial liability for defective things)
- Toston v. Pardon, 874 So. 2d 791 (La. 2004) (DOTD not required to upgrade old highways to modern AASHTO standards absent major reconstruction)
- Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge, 935 So. 2d 669 (La. 2006) (summary judgment purpose: just, speedy, inexpensive determination)