181 So. 3d 733
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Fire started April 29, 2006, in a newly installed Manitowoc Series 600 ice machine at Mulligan’s Tavern; business (owned by Flappery, managed/then-purchasing Starke) was closed ~35 weeks for repairs.
- Starke (operator/buyer) and ARS (owned coin/video machines in the bar) sued Manitowoc for damages from the fire; trial judge found the ice machine defective and Manitowoc liable.
- Plaintiffs’ fire expert (Hero) inspected the unit multiple times, dismantled it during a joint inspection, concluded ignition originated inside the machine; Manitowoc’s experts disputed defect and pointed to possible improper installation or undetermined cause.
- Trial court applied res ipsa loquitur after finding the fire originated within the machine and awarded damages to Starke and ARS; Manitowoc appealed on liability, statutory-product-defect proof, damages calculations, and discovery sanctions.
- On appeal the court upheld liability (no manifest error), rejected spoliation sanction argument, but reduced Starke’s video-poker award to account for business operating losses that would have offset gross video revenue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of res ipsa loquitur to infer manufacturing defect | Fire originated inside machine; accidents like this don’t normally occur absent negligence; res ipsa supports inference of internal defect | Evidence did not eliminate other causes; installation or other external causes plausible | Court: Trial court reasonably found origin inside machine and properly applied res ipsa; liability affirmed |
| Spoliation (destruction of machine parts) | Pieces were inspected jointly; disposal occurred after insurer settlement and pieces had no probative value | Plaintiffs’ expert destroyed direct evidence and thus cannot invoke presumption of defect | Court: Disposal had reasonable explanation; spoliation presumption inapplicable |
| Statutory proof of construction/composition defect (La. R.S. 9:2800.55) | New machine and internal-origin fire within one month supports a defect when it left manufacturer | No proof machine deviated from manufacturer specs or QC—Manitowoc’s testing should have revealed faults | Court: Given origin and timing, trial court reasonably found the product defective under statutory framework |
| Award of video poker gross revenue vs. net profit | Plaintiffs claimed past net video poker receipts (already after expenses) and sought lost video revenue for closure period | Manitowoc: Gross video revenue is not proper; must deduct operating expenses (bar losses) because video revenue requires operating the bar and licensing | Court: Trial court erred excluding defendant’s accounting testimony; remanded/ amended award—Starke’s video revenue reduced to account for $44,000 business operating loss; ARS award affirmed |
| Lease payments and repair expenses awarded to plaintiff | Payments were necessary to secure lease and reopen; plaintiffs reasonably mitigated and incurred unreimbursed repair costs | Manitowoc: Plaintiffs had no legal obligation to pay rents/repairs and could have mitigated by walking away | Court: Plaintiffs’ decision to proceed was reasonable; lease payments and documented unreimbursed repairs were recoverable |
| Sanctions for discovery violations | Plaintiffs contend discovery omissions had explanations; joint inspections occurred | Manitowoc argues plaintiffs repeatedly violated orders and made false representations warranting sanctions | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion denying sanctions; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 89 So.3d 307 (La. 2012) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error standard for factual findings)
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La. 1978) (two-part test for reviewing factfinder’s conclusions)
- Montgomery v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp., 540 So.2d 312 (La. 1989) (elements and foundation for applying res ipsa loquitur)
- Linnear v. CenterPoint Energy Entex/Reliant Energy, 966 So.2d 36 (La. 2007) (res ipsa loquitur in circumstantial-evidence cases)
- Spott v. Otis Elevator Co., 601 So.2d 1355 (La. 1992) (application of res ipsa loquitur)
- Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Ins. Co. of N.Y., 250 So.2d 754 (La. 1971) (res ipsa in products cases)
- Wrap-On Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 626 So.2d 874 (La. App.) (res ipsa loquitur is circumstantial evidence doctrine)
- Larkin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 97 So.2d 389 (La. 1957) (classic formulation of res ipsa loquitur)
- Powell v. Chabanais Concrete Pumping, Inc., 82 So.3d 548 (La. App.) (restatement of res ipsa elements)
- Ullrich v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Service District No. 2, 867 So.2d 7 (La. App.) (res ipsa application)
- Guidry v. Louisville Tin & Stove Co., 613 So.2d 1114 (La. App.) (res ipsa applied in products-liability context)