106 So. 3d 238
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- This is a consolidated Louisiana tort case in which plaintiffs challenge a JNOV that reversed exemplary damages and defendants challenge compensatory damages.
- The accident involved Mr. Gonzalez driving a Veolia vehicle, who allegedly was intoxicated, causing a crash with Mr. Mouton’s 18-wheeler and the death of Mr. Thistlethwaite; Veolia and insurers are defendants.
- Jury found Gonzalez intoxicated, Veolia negligent in entrustment and entrusting a vehicle, and allocated 50/50 fault between Gonzalez and Veolia; exemplary damages were awarded.
- Trial court granted a JNOV denying exemplary damages; the appellate court reversed the JNOV and awarded exemplaries: $3.6 million to Thistlethwaite and $1.5 million to Mouton.
- The court conducted its own de novo review of exemplary damages under BMW v. Gore and Mosing v. Domas, and reduced the total punitive damages from $25 million to the specified de novo awards.
- The case discusses the admissibility and weight of expert and lay testimony on intoxication, the credibility of witnesses, and the appropriate ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the JNOV on intoxication permissible given competent evidence? | Gonzalez’s intoxication evidence was competent and could support verdict. | Evidence did not support intoxication; trial court properly granted JNOV. | No; de novo review shows competent evidence supported intoxication. |
| Can an employer be vicariously liable for punitive damages when the employee was not in course and scope of employment? | Veolia liable via negligent entrustment; jury found non-employment status but still liable. | Punitive damages cannot attach to employer if employee not acting within course and scope. | moot; jury found no course-and-scope, so no vicarious punitive damages. |
| Was Veolia negligent in entrustment given Gonzalez’s DUI history and lack of investigation? | Veolia’s failure to perform driving-history checks supported negligent entrustment. | Entrustment liability should be limited to intoxication proof and scope. | Yes; negligent entrustment proven by Veolia’s failure to investigate prior DUI history. |
| Are the punitive damages awards constitutional under due process? | Jury award appropriate to punish and deter given reprehensibility. | $25M punitive damages were grossly excessive relative to compensatory damages. | De novo: reduce to $3.6M to Thistlethwaite and $1.5M to Mouton; due process satisfied with revised ratio. |
| Did the trial court abuse in not bifurcating liability and damages affecting compensatory awards? | Bifurcation unnecessary since liability supported damages. | Bifurcation could prevent inflation of damages. | No reversible error; mere absence of bifurcation did not require reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (factors for gross excessiveness in punitive awards)
- Mosing v. Domas, 830 So.2d 967 (La. 2002) (reprehensibility and ratio guide punitive damages; wealth considered)
- Leary v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 978 So.2d 1094 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2008) (ratio reasoning when harm is limited to a single occupant)
- Tingle v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 40 So.3d 1169 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (2:1 punitive-to-compensatory ratio upheld in comparable intoxicated-driver case)
- Lafauci v. Jenkins, 844 So.2d 19 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2003) (intent and causation requirements for Article 2315.4 punitive damages)
- Owens v. Anderson, 631 So.2d 1313 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1994) (consideration of totality of circumstances in impairment cases)
- Cattles v. Allstate Inc. Co., 45 So.3d 627 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing JNOV on punitive issues)
- Davis v. Lazarus, 927 So.2d 456 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (limits on granting JNOV when evidence supports verdict)
- Smith v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Development, 899 So.2d 516 (La. 2005) (jury as trier of fact; standard for JNOV review)