142 So. 3d 228
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- On August 9, 2011 Romious sued CBSL for injuries allegedly sustained while delivering a tanker to CBSL’s facility; service was effected on CBSL via CT Corporation.
- Romious obtained a preliminary default and on January 4, 2013 a confirmation hearing was held where Romious and his wife testified about the accident, injuries, employment, lost wages, and medical treatment; medical records were not introduced.
- On March 8, 2013 the trial court entered judgment for Romious awarding $162,500; notice was mailed March 13, 2013.
- CBSL appeared April 19, 2013 and appealed; it challenged the default judgment on multiple grounds, including insufficiency and inadmissibility of evidence and erroneous findings about employment.
- The appellate court found the trial court manifestly erred by stating Romious was employed by CBSL when the record showed he worked for Schilli Corp./Truck Transport, Inc., and also found medical records were not admitted so damages were not sufficiently proven.
- The appellate court vacated and remanded the judgment for further proceedings; costs assessed to CBSL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default judgment was supported by admissible evidence | Romious argued his testimony (and his wife’s) and oral description of medical treatment sufficed to confirm default and establish damages | CBSL argued the evidence was inadmissible/insufficient (medical records not admitted) and service/record issues undermined the default | Trial court’s factual finding was manifestly erroneous; appellate court vacated the judgment because medical records were not admitted and damages weren’t sufficiently proven |
| Whether inadmissible medical evidence was considered | Romious relied on his testimony about diagnosis, surgery, and disability | CBSL contended medical evidence was not properly introduced and thus could not support judgment | Court noted medical records were not offered into evidence; insufficient proof of medical damages |
| Whether plaintiff proved defendant’s liability/employment relationship | Romious testified he was delivering to CBSL and implied an employment relationship relevant to liability | CBSL argued Romious was not its employee and thus the trial court erred in finding an employer–employee relationship | Appellate court found trial court erred in imputing employment to CBSL; record showed Romious worked for Schilli/Truck Transport, Inc. |
| Whether damages awarded were excessive | Romious sought the damages awarded based on testimony | CBSL argued general and special damages were excessive and unsupported | Because liability and damages proof were insufficient and employment finding was wrong, the award was vacated and matter remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Stobart v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (requirement to re-determine facts de novo when manifest error is found)
- Bordelon v. Sayer, 811 So.2d 1232 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (review scope for default-judgment sufficiency)
- Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 938 So.2d 662 (La. 2006) (procedures and nature of preliminary defaults and confirmations)
- Thibodeaux v. Burton, 538 So.2d 1001 (La. 1989) (plaintiff must present competent evidence to establish prima facie case at default confirmation)
- Ascension Builders, Inc. v. Jumonville, 263 So.2d 875 (La. 1972) (presumption that default judgment is supported by sufficient evidence can be rebutted by the record)
- Stelly v. Overhead Door Co. of Baton Rouge, 646 So.2d 905 (La. 1994) (employee cannot sue employer in tort for ordinary negligence; workers’ compensation is exclusive remedy)