127 So. 3d 132
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Automobile collision where a left-turning Bohannon struck Hatch who was legally passing in a two-lane highway passing lane.
- Jury allocated 53% fault to Hatch and 47% to Bohannon; damages awarded accordingly.
- Court amended to allocate 100% fault to Bohannon under La.R.S. 32:104, 32:73, and 32:75; other aspects of verdict affirmed.
- Bohannon was driving a company F350 towing a trailer; Hatch was in the passing lane behind Bohannon before the left turn.
- Trooper Bourque opined Hatch had control of the passing lane and Bohannon failed to yield; Bohannon’s signals and lighting were disputed.
- Damages included medical expenses, past and future damages, and non-economic losses, with several expert opinions presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper fault allocation | Hatch was not at fault; Bohannon failed to yield and was responsible. | Jury’s fault split was reasonable under the evidence. | Allocate 100% fault to Bohannon. |
| Damages adequacy | Damages undercompensated; past medicals and future needs supported by evidence. | Jury acted within its discretion; not manifestly wrong. | Damages affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Treatment of uncontradicted treating expert testimony | Jury failed to follow instruction on uncontradicted treating testimony. | Credibility determinations rested with the jury; experts may be weighed. | No error; jury may weigh expert evidence. |
| Housley presumption applicability | Housley requires broader damages due to causation from accident. | Housley only addresses causation, not selection of damages; jury may limit damages accordingly. | Housley presumption does not mandate all claimed damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 773 So.2d 670 (La. 2000) (standard for appellate review of fault allocation; deference to trier of fact; manifest error standard)
- Stobart v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong standard of review for factual findings)
- Sistler v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106 (La. 1990) (findings of fact not disturbed absent manifest error)
- Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 469 So.2d 967 (La. 1985) (factors influencing fault; last clear chance; assessment range)
- Clement v. Frey, 666 So.2d 607 (La. 1996) (allocation of fault is not exact science; range within which reasonable)
- Layssard v. State, Dep’t of Public Safety & Corrs., 963 So.2d 1053 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2007) (allocation considerations; appellate review)
- Kilpatrick v. Alliance Casualty Reinsurance Co., 663 So.2d 62 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1995) (left-turning and overtaking vehicles bear high duty of care)
- Palmieri v. Frierson, 288 So.2d 620 (La. 1974) (duty to ensure safe overtaking and passing)
- Burns v. Evans-Cooperage Co., 23 So.2d 165 (La. 1945) (duty of overtaking driver; safety in passing situations)
- Thomas v. Champion Ins. Co., 603 So.2d 765 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1992) (presumption burden on left-turning motorist in collision)
- Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La. 1991) (causation presumption; not a damages-mandate standard)
- Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La. 1993) (standard for reviewing quantum; deference to trier of fact)