247 So. 3d 811
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- On June 24, 2014 a three-car chain-reaction crash occurred on I-10: Smith (third car) struck Tannehill (middle car), which in turn contacted Plaintiff Watson (lead car).
- Watson sued Smith and Tannehill (and their insurers) alleging Tannehill followed too closely and struck Watson from the rear, and that Smith subsequently struck Tannehill.
- Tannehill moved for summary judgment, submitting an affidavit and deposition excerpts asserting her car was stopped and only contacted Watson when Smith rear-ended her and pushed her into Watson.
- Watson relied on her affidavit (stating she was struck from behind) and portions of Smith's deposition suggesting Smith believed Tannehill might have hit Watson first; Watson objected to use of the police accident report.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Tannehill; on appeal the court reviewed de novo, addressing (1) whether there was a genuine dispute about the number/timing of impacts and (2) whether Tannehill rebutted the presumption she was negligent for following too closely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine dispute about number/timing of impacts to Watson's vehicle | Watson says affidavits and Smith's testimony create a factual dispute that Tannehill hit Watson before Smith struck Tannehill | Tannehill points to her affidavit and deposition testimony showing she was stopped and only struck Watson after Smith hit her; neither Watson nor Smith can definitively establish two impacts | No genuine factual dispute; evidence supports Tannehill's account that only one impact to Watson occurred, caused when Smith struck Tannehill |
| Whether Tannehill was negligent for following too closely (rebuttable presumption) | Watson argues Tannehill followed too closely and therefore is presumed negligent | Tannehill argues she rebutted the presumption by showing she was stopped and struck only when Smith hit her; brake lights and testimony support this | Presumption of negligence rebutted; Tannehill entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
| Admissibility/use of the police accident report on summary judgment | Watson contends the police report is inadmissible under La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(4) and should not be considered | Tannehill relied on the police report; court considered it without ruling on Watson's timely objection | Trial court erred in admitting the report without ruling on objection, but error was harmless because appellate de novo review reached same outcome without relying on the report |
| Sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence to meet trial burden | Watson asserts her affidavit and deposition excerpts show triable issues | Tannehill argues Watson cannot point to evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find Tannehill struck Watson before Smith's impact | Court held Watson failed to produce countervailing evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La. 1987) (presumption of negligence for a rear-end collision)
- Chanthasalo v. Deshotel, 234 So.3d 1103 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (standard of appellate de novo review on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard — whether reasonable jury could return a verdict for nonmoving party)
- LeBlanc v. Bouzon, 159 So.3d 1144 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (three-vehicle chain-reaction case where middle driver prevailed on summary judgment)