Reichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. and DevelopmentReichert v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development
Donald L. Kneipp, Ernest Eugene Hastings, Kneipp & Hastings, Thomas G. Zentner, Jr., Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, Monroe, Edward M. Campbell, Baton Rouge, Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General, for Respondent in No. 96-C-1419.
Donald L. Kneipp, Ernest Eugene Hastings, Kneipp & Hastings, Monroe, for Applicant in No. 96-C-1460.
Charles Sterling Smith, Karen Luikart Hayes, Thomas G. Zentner, Jr., Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, Monroe, Edward M. Campbell, Baton Rouge, Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General, for Respondent in No. 96-C-1460.
TRAYLOR, Justice.[*]
We granted certiorari to determine when
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises out of a three-vehicle collision that occurred at the intersection of two Louisiana highways, resulting in the death of the driver of one of the vehicles. Highway 33 and Highway 821 are paved two-laned roads that intersect about six miles north of Ruston, Louisiana, where Highway 33 curvеs to the left. A hill crest is located approximately 600 feet before this intersection and the roadway drops to the intersection. To warn of the intersection, both a crossroad caution sign and junction sign are located approximately 1000 and 800 feet, respectively, prior to the intersection.
On July 26, 1991, a northbound pickup truck driven by Ronnie Martin was stopped in the travel lane preparing to make a left turn. Light rain was falling. The decedent, Arthur Reichert, was driving his pickup truck southbound on Highway 33. Defendant, A.L. Williams, was driving his pickup truck pulling a sixteen-foot flatbed trаiler northbound on Highway 33. Williams passed the signs indicating the intersection, proceeded over the hill, slammed on his brakes to make an emergency stop, and lost control of his vehicle. As a result, Williams entered Reichert‘s lane of travel, and his trailer jack-knifed, colliding with Reichert‘s vehicle. The collision killed Reichert immediately. Williams also struck the rear of Martin‘s vehicle.
A trial by jury found Williams and DOTD each 50% at fault, relieving Reichert from any liability. In a written opinion, the trial judge applied the sudden emergency doctrine and found DOTD 100% at fault. The judge signed a single judgment reflecting the jury‘s decision on damages, but reflecting both the jury‘s and the court‘s assessment of fault. During trial, the court admitted into evidence three letters from the DOTD chief engineer to state representatives addressing the placement of a flashing beacon light at the intersection where the accident occurred, and a DOTD memorandum recommending against the flashing beacon. Defendants Williams and DOTD appealed.
The court of appeal affirmed the jury award of damages, reversed both trial court rulings, and held defendant Williams 100% at fault and DOTD free from fault. Reichert v. State, D.O.T.D., 656 So.2d 47 (La. App. 2 Cir.1995). (Reichert I). The court of appeal maintained the aforementioned exhibits were inadmissible under
This court vacated the judgment of the court of appeal, found the exhibits in question were admissible, and on February 9, 1996, remanded this matter to the court of appeal to harmonize the two lower court findings. Reichert v. State, D.O.T.D., 667 So.2d 542 (La.), per curium, reh‘g denied, 669 So.2d 1225 (1996). This court issued the following order:
Writ granted. Court of Appeal erred in finding that exhibits 29, 33, 36 and 37 were not admissible under
23 U.S.C.A. § 409 and this court‘s decision in Wiedeman v. Dixie Electric Membership Corporation, 627 So.2d 170 (La.1993). Therefore, the court erred in making a “de novo assessment of liability without deference to either verdict.” Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeal and remand the case to that court to render a judgment after giving proper deference to the jury verdict and the judgment of the trial court.Id.
In our view, the court of appeal did not show deference to the lower court rulings as this court ordered, but rather responded to the remand by adhering to its previous determination. It held that the evidence had been erroneously admitted, although on grounds other than Section 409, or that this admission did not alter the previous finding of fаult. Reichert v. State, D.O.T.D., 674 So.2d 1105 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ granted, 679 So.2d 1357 (La.1996) (Reichert II). Thus, they avoided the question of how to reconcile inconsistent judge and jury verdicts and determined the appropriate standard of review was de novo. The appellate court further held that the letter and study prepared at the request of a state representative after the accident were remedial measures which were inadmissible to show negligence on the part of the state. Finally, the court of appeal held that three other exhibits they previously deemed inadmissible but this court deemed admissible were favorable to thе state‘s case, and thus did not alter the prior determination that the state was not at fault. The court of appeal again found Williams solely at fault for the accident and DOTD free from fault. We granted plaintiffs’ and Williams’ application for certiorari to review the correctness of this decision.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Interpretation and Application of 23 U.S.C. § 409
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway сonditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 152 of the title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented using Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data. (As amended Nov. 28, 1995, P.L. 104-59, Title III, § 323, 109 Stat. 591).
We hold section 409 bars discovery and introduction into evidence of all highway safety information collected or compiled by the State for the purpose of obtaining federal funds to enforce safety. Here, the four
In Wiedeman, this court recognized the importance of section 409 in that it “[f]orms part of a comprehensive federal plan to promote highway safety,” and held thаt the following are admissible and discoverable: accident reports; traffic counts; and other raw data collected by the DOTD. Wiedeman, 627 So.2d at 173. Furthermore, this court held that exhibits considered not admissible and discoverable included: surveys to identify hazardous railroad crossings and improve them (§ 130); applications for federal assistance in replacing or rehabilitating highway bridges (§ 144); studies assigning priorities and schedules of projects for highway improvement (§ 152); and other compilations made for developing highway safety construction projects which would utilize Federal-aid funds (§ 409). Id. at 173. Thus, аn exception to section 409‘s immunity was created for accident reports, traffic counts, and other raw data. It was this holding upon which this court relied in issuing the per curium order to the second circuit.
On November 28, 1995 section 409 was amended to include the words “or collected” after “compiled” to effectively eliminate the admissibility of “[a]ccident reports, traffic counts, and other raw data collected by the Department” allowed by the holding in Wiedeman. Id. This clarification was added in response to recent State court decisions, like Wiedeman, that in the view of Cоngress, misinterpreted the term “data compiled.” “It is intended that raw data compiled prior to being made part of any formal or bound report shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such data.” Act of November 18, 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-59, 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. (109 Stat.) 568 (hereinafter “1995 U.S.C.C.A.N.“). In other words, such information is collected or compiled to protect the public by еnsuring that safety measures are routinely explored by DOTD without exposing their efforts.
Plaintiffs allege that the exhibits at issue are relevant and admissible to show the dangerous condition of the accident sites and
Since the accident here occurred before the amendment of section 409, the amendment‘s retroactive application must be examined. Initially, a court must defer to legislative intent when determining whether a statute should be applied prospеctively or retroactively. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 n. 9 (1984). Further, “[a]lthough [the United States Supreme Court has] long embraced a presumption against statutory retroactivity, for just as long [they] have recognized that, in many situations, a court should ‘apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision,’ ... even though that law was enacted after the events that gave rise to the suit.” Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 245 (1994), (citing Bradley v. School Bd. of City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711 (1974)). Under Bradley, “a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary.” Bradley, 416 U.S. at 711. Manifest injustice is determined by examining the nature and identity of the parties, the nature of their rights and the impact of the change in law on those rights. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Yemelos, 778 F.Supp. 329, 331 (E.D.La.1991) (citing Bradley, 416 U.S. at 717).
Here, the legislative intent for retroactive application is easily ascertained. Based on its purpose, we find the amendment is procedural, and seeks to rectify the misapplication of the statute by various state courts. 1995 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 568. Section 409 and its amendment instruct us on the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence. The amendment merely clarifies what the original statute purported to enact. Section 409 was еnacted before the date of this accident. The statute predates the accident, and is controlling.
However, even if legislative intent were uncertain, section 409 as amended would still warrant retroactive application. No manifest injustice will result from the retroactive application of section 409. Examining section 409 under the Bradley rule results in the same conclusion. Here, one of the parties involved is the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, a party who represents and protects important public interests. The statute itself was enacted to insulate DOTD from liability when upholding its public trust of continually examining the safety of public highways. The second concern enunciated in Bradley involves the nature of the rights involved. The extent to which certain documents are discoverable or admissible is clearly a procedural right. Reichert is not deprived of a constitutionally vested right when deprived of the evaluations and recommendations of the DOTD. Finally, under Bradley the impact of the “change”4 in those rights is examined. Here, Reichert is not deprived of his cause of action. He merely can not rely upon the DOTD fоr his discovery. Such an impact is insignificant in light of the likely legislative intent.
Consequently, whether examined under clear legislative intent or by applying the Bradley rule, section 409‘s amendment must be applied retroactively to the date of its original enactment. To do otherwise would thwart the purpose of enacting the amendment.
Standard of Review
Having decided that the lower court findings of fact were based on erroneously admitted evidence, we must now address the issue of proper appellate action and what standard of review should be applied. Specifically, the court of appeal‘s initial review of this case is examined. Reichert I, 656 So.2d 47. As previously stated, this court did not conduct a supervisory review in Reichert I, but rather remanded with the above mentioned per curium.
Defendant DOTD maintained five assignments of error by the trial court: (1) the trial court erred by admitting evaluations of the highway in question into evidence, contrary to section 409; (2) the trial court erred by not following
The first assignment of error is meritorious for the reasons outlined supra. The second circuit correctly resolved that issue by finding that Exhibits 29, 33, 36 and 37 were not admissible under section 409. Having found this error, the appellate court then decided the manifest error standard would not apply as the improper admission of evidence had tainted the fact-finding process. Thus, the appellate court concluded it “[m]ust make its own independent review of the record, giving no weight to the verdict and deciding the case by a preponderance of the evidence.” McLean v. Hunter, 495 So.2d 1298 (La.1986); Hines v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 613 So.2d 646 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 617 So.2d 932 (La.1993). Significantly, a review of the erroneously admitted exhibits at issue reveals the court of appeal found that Exhibits 33, 36 and 37 were actually favorable to the state‘s case. Additionally, their review of Exhibit 29 revealed that it had been prepared after the accident had occurred. Thus, the DOTD‘s recommendation for a flashing beacon had the potential to prejudice the decision of the fact finders “[b]y raising an unwarranted influence that the state was negligent at the time of the offense. Inherent in the remedial nature of the evidence is the implication that the actions should have been taken prior to the accident.” Id. at 52. Consequently, finding that the judge and the jury verdicts were tainted by the admission of these exhibits, and that they were therefore not entitled to deference, the court of appeal correctly decided a de novo assessment of the issue of liability was necessary.
The second contention raised by DOTD addressed
Our review of this entire record shows that the DOTD fulfilled its duties and was not negligent. The court of appeal did not, and we cannot, say the same about defendant Williams. This accident occurred predominantly in Reichert‘s lane of travel. Since Williams entered the wrong lane of travel when the accident occurred, he is presumed to be at fault and is required to exculpate himself from any fault, however slight, that may have contributed to the accident. King v. Louviere, 543 So.2d 1327 (La. 1989). All parties agree that this accident occurred on a slightly rainy day. A motorist will be held to a higher standard of care in adverse weather conditions and will be expected to control his vehicle in a manner and at a speed he can handle. Chastain v. Allstate Ins. Co., 212 So.2d 243 (La.App. 2d Cir.1968); Crockett v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 229 So.2d 169 (La.App. 1st Cir.1969), writ refused, 255 La. 286, 230 So.2d 589 (1970). Therefore, we find the court of appeal correctly determined Williams had not risen above his higher standard of care, and thus having absolved the DOTD from liability, found Williams’ actions to be the sole cause of the accident.
We turn next to plaintiffs’ assertion that damages were inadequate. “A damage award should not be disturbed by the reviewing court absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion vested in the trial court. It is only after an articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion that resort to prior awards in similar cases is proper.” Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La.1979); Stephens, 642 So.2d at 284; Jaffarzad v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc., 561 So.2d 144 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 565 So.2d 450 (La.1990). Here, plaintiffs received $235,000 for the loss of love and affection, $125,000 for the loss of services and support, and $7,000 for medical and funeral expenses. The court of appeal in Reichert I and II affirmed these amounts and reasoned no abuse of discretion occurred in their determination. We agree. Accоrdingly, the amount of damages and the apportionment thereof adopted by the appellate court is hereby affirmed.
CONCLUSION
In Reichert I, the second circuit properly found that Exhibits 29, 33, 36 and 37 were reports evaluating the data collected to make a decision on safety enhancement upgrades that may use federal funds. Further, the appellate court held those reports to be the quintessential evidence intended by the United States Congress to be excluded from state court tort actions. Appropriately, the second circuit determined the аdmission of these exhibits tainted the lower court findings, warranted their de novo review and absolved the state from liability in this case. We now adopt the reasoning employed therein, and rule that Section 409 is to be applied retroactively. Subsequently, in Reichert II, the court of appeal, with the admissibility of the aforementioned exhibits, again found the state free from fault. We agree and now affirm the holdings in Reichert II.
For the reasons assigned herein, the judgment of the court of appeal in Reichert II is affirmed.
LEMMON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
JOHNSON, J., concurs.
LEMMON, Justice, concurring.
The majority correctly affirms the judgment of the court of аppeal, but errs, in my view, in two respects. First, it is unnecessary to address the retroactivity of the 1995 amendment to
Putting the “retroactivity” issue in proper perspective, I believe the issue would be more appropriately framed as whether the amendment applied to the admissibility of the evidence at the time the evidence was offered. Framing the issue in terms of retroactivity begs the question of “retroactive to when.”
The labeling of an amendment as procedural does not automatically justify retroactive application of the amendment to all pending cases. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 275 n. 29 (1994). Rather, a court, in resolving a retroactivity question, must consider the purpose and nature of the amendment, and also must consider the posturе of the case.
The 1995 amendment to
The majority cites two United States Supreme Court cases, Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), and Bradley v. School Bd. of City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696 (1974), for the proposition that an appellate court generally is required to apply the law in effect at the time of its decision. Neither of these cases involved an amendment to an evidentiary rule.
The Court in Bradley, although stating the general language invoked by the majority, held that an amendment authorizing the award of attorney‘s fees to successful рlaintiffs in school discrimination cases applied retroactively on appeal.2 However, the Court thereafter in Landgraf, in declining to apply retroactively a comprehensive revision of the Civil Rights Act providing for (among other things) punitive damages and jury trials, cautioned that ”Bradley did not alter the well-settled presumption against application of the class of new statutes that would have genuinely ‘retroactive’ effect” and in which
Moreover, the Court in Landgraf noted that an amendment to an evidentiary rule would not require an appellate court to order a new trial. Id. Likewise, Justice Scalia in his concurring opinion gave the following example which is especially pertinent here:
A new rule of evidence governing expert testimony, for example, is aimed at regulating the conduct of trial, and the event relevant to retroactivity of the rule is introduction of the testimony. Even though a procedural rule, it would unquestionably not be applied to testimony already taken—reversing a case on appeal, for example, because the new rule had not been applied at a trial which antedated the statute.
Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 291-92 (1994) (emphasis added).
While I strongly disagree with the majority on the “retroactivity” issue, I nevertheless concur in the result for the reasons stated above.