69 So. 3d 674
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jennifer Thibodeaux was seriously injured when her car struck a 3500-pound concrete debris pile on Highway 190 after leaving her lane during a morning crash in St. Landry Parish.
- The debris pile, located within DOTD's right-of-way but outside the clear zone, had been present for two to three months during a Gilchrist Construction project.
- Gilchrist had a contractual obligation to remove debris from the right-of-way; Ardoin (Gilchrist supervisor) testified debris was not within the construction limits and that DOTD did not tell him to remove it.
- DOTD Inspectors and engineers were on-site daily; Thibodeaux argued DOTD knew of the debris and failed to remove it, contributing to her injuries.
- Trial court allocated 60% fault to Thibodeaux and 40% to Gilchrist; DOTD was found not liable; Thibodeaux appealed challenging this ruling.
- The appellate court conducted a de novo review on whether the debris created an unreasonable risk of harm to the motoring public and on fault allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the debris created an unreasonable risk of harm to DOTD | Thibodeaux contends debris within DOTD’s right-of-way posed unreasonable risk. | DOTD argues no DOTD duty breach since debris was not a road defect causing the crash and not within the construction limits. | Debris created an unreasonable risk to DOTD; DOTD liable. |
| Whether debris acted as an intervening/superceding cause | Debris was a concurrent cause of the injuries. | Plaintiff’s own driving caused the exit from the roadway; debris not an independent cause. | Debris aided causation; not superseding. |
| Whether 60% fault to Thibodeaux was correct | Thibodeaux argues fault share should be reduced for her safety-contributing behavior. | Negligence attributable to Thibodeaux due to loss of control and impact occurred after collision. | 60% fault to Thibodeaux affirmed. |
| Appropriate fault allocation between DOTD and Gilchrist | DOTD and Gilchrist should share fault due to duty to remove debris. | Both had equal opportunity to observe debris; contractor's failure to remove it should be the responsibility of Gilchrist. | 20% DOTD and 20% Gilchrist; 60% Thibodeaux. |
| Whether damages awarded were appropriate | DAmages should cover medical expenses, lost wages, and pain/suffering from the injuries. | Damage calculation shall reflect fault shares and the injuries’ lasting impact. | General damages $125,000; medical expenses $64,677.40; lost wages $3,093.40. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forbes v. Cockerham, 5 So. 3d 839 (La. 2009) (duty to maintain roadways; unreasonable risk factors guided by context)
- Netecke v. State ex rel. DOTD, 747 So. 2d 489 (La. 1999) (unreasonable risk framework for DOTD liability)
- Cormier v. Comeaux, 748 So. 2d 1123 (La. 1999) (previous standard cited; deference narrowed on unreasonable risk)
- Roberts v. State, Through Dep't of Transp. and Dev., 576 So. 2d 85 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1991) (non-delegable duty; contractor liability where applicable)
- O'Quin v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co., 967 So. 2d 1194 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2007) (presumptions of negligence; duty to maintain lookout)
- Stone v. Bullard, 2 So. 3d 1241 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2009) (driver negligence presumptions; lane encroachment)
- Becker v. Dean, 854 So. 2d 864 (La. 2003) (de novo review when legal standard applied incorrectly)
- Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065 (La. 2009) (fault apportionment considerations)