Category: Car Accident

Some accidents are unpredictable, while others appear to be accidents waiting to happen. Having reliable witnesses, qualified experts, and an excellent attorney in either unpredictable or predictable cases could be the dividing line in determining your liability when an accident arises. For Larry Jeane, Sr. (“Mr. Jeane”), the deceased party in a two-car accident along Louisiana Highway 107, whose vehicle crossed the centerline and collided with another car carrying six adults and one minor, the courts were positioned to consider his liability after the accident. 

Mr. Jeane was transported by ambulance to Rapides Regional Medical Center (“RRMC”) after the accident. He reportedly had no recollection of the accident. Mr. Jeane had a history of heart disease and type-II diabetes, but it was likely his injuries from the accident that resulted in his death less than a week later. While at RRMC, his attending physician, Dr. Jeremy Timmer (“Dr. Timmer”), noted that Mr. Jeane had been on the phone with a friend and started talking “funny,” possibly due to low blood sugar when he collided with the other vehicle.  The seven passengers of that other vehicle, namely Sarah Barber, Jamie Turner, Racheal Spivey, Elizabeth Spivey, Dana Spivey, Wallace Spivey, Racheal Spivey, and Jamie Turner on behalf of the minor, Abigail Turner (collectively “the plaintiffs”) eventually sued Mr. Jeane’s estate and his insurance company for damages resulting from the accident. 

Throughout the litigation, the plaintiffs then moved for partial summary judgment solely on the issue of liability. To support the motion, the plaintiffs submitted three supporting documents: (1) an affidavit from Sandra Shannon (“Ms. Shannon”), who was driving the vehicle directly in front of the plaintiffs and witnessed the accident; (2) an affidavit from Sarah Barber (“Ms. Barber”), who was driving the other vehicle involved in the accident; and (3) a record of the deposition taken of Pineville City Marshal, Sarah A. Smith (“Ms. Smith”), who responded to the scene after the accident occurred. Ms. Shannon’s affidavit stated that she saw “[Mr. Jeane] was slumped over” at the wheel as his vehicle “veered gently.” Ms. Barber testified in her affidavit that she saw Ms. Shannon’s vehicle swerve off the road “suddenly, without any prior warning” before she saw Mr. Jeane’s vehicle approaching her, but she could not avoid the collision. Finally, Ms. Smith noted that she did not witness the accident but rode with Mr. Jeane to the hospital when he told her he did not know what happened. 

In addition to the statements mentioned above from witnesses, the plaintiffs also included the certified medical record of Dr. Timmer in support of their partial motion for summary judgment. In opposition, counsel for Mr. Jeane submitted an affidavit from Dr. Brabson Lutz (“Dr. Lutz”), an internal medicine and infectious disease physician and certified medical expert in Louisiana. After reviewing the supporting documents submitted by the plaintiffs, Dr. Lutz reached a different explanation of Mr. Jeane’s condition and conclusion for the accident. According to Dr. Lutz, prior health records pre-accident and laboratory reports post-accident indicated that Mr. Jeane suffered a cardiac arrhythmia that suddenly deprived his brain of oxygen, which caused him to lose consciousness. This condition, Mr. Lutz concluded, was unforeseeable.

Once the district court reviewed the plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment, including the evidence presented by both sides, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion. Specifically, the district court found that because Mr. Jeane alleged an affirmative defense, which was that he experienced a medical condition that was so sudden, unexpected, and unforeseeable that he could not have reasonably prevented the accident, he had to prove this condition by clear and convincing evidence. The district court ruled that Mr. Jeane did not meet this burden. In turn, counsel for Mr. Jeane appealed. 

In personal injury law, the legal principle of foreseeability refers to the level of predictability when an accident occurs. If the injury that results from a party’s actions is considered foreseeable, then that party can be held liable for damages caused to the injured party. Conversely, the party may not be held responsible if the injury is unforeseeable. Foreseeability is an essential element in personal injury cases, so proving that a party’s actions were unforeseeable could be an affirmative defense that precludes that party’s liability. 

On appeal, the State of Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit recognized the record of supporting documents provided by both sides at the district court that it is possible Mr. Jeane’s actions were unforeseeable. Specifically, the Court wrote, “Ms. Shannon’s statement that she saw Mr. Jeane slumped over as his truck passed her supports Dr. Lutz’s opinion [“that Mr. Jeane suffered a sudden, unforeseeable cardiac arrhythmia that deprived his brain of oxygen and rendered him unconscious”].” Moreover, the Court emphasized that “the day before the accident,” Mr. Jeane was bragging about how he was cleared by his heart doctor and received a clear call from his blood sugar and diabetes reports, which “indicate[d] that any event like arrhythmia opined by Dr. Lutz was not foreseeable.”

Therefore, this Court acknowledged the discrepancy in the record between Dr. Lutz’s affidavit provided by Mr. Jeane’s counsel and the supporting documents provided by the plaintiffs and concluded that since a genuine issue of material fact existed in the record, the district court erred in granting the plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment. Since a genuine issue material, fact precludes a court from granting summary judgment as stated in La. Code Civ.P. art. 966 (D)(1), the Court reversed the district court’s decision. 

Ultimately, the Court concluded that it would be up to Mr. Jeane’s counsel to prove at trial whether the foreseeability of his actions were reasonable or his condition’s unforeseeability could absolve him of any liability altogether.

In the intricate landscape of personal injury law, the concept of foreseeability stands as a pivotal determinant in the attribution of liability. This nuanced principle draws the line between incidents that could have been reasonably anticipated and those that appear as unforeseeable twists of fate. The case of Mr. Jeane vividly underscores the significance of foreseeability, as it oscillates between predictable and unexpected factors. As legal proceedings progress, the question of whether the foreseeable could have been truly unforeseen becomes a central enigma to unravel. The saga of Mr. Jeane’s tragic collision stands as a testament to the complex interplay of circumstances that mold the boundaries of liability, illustrating the need for experienced legal representation.

Additional Sources: SARAH BARBER, ET AL. VERSUS LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY GROUP SELF-INSURED FUND, ET AL.

Written by Berniard Law Firm Blog Writer: Gina McKlveen

Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Foreseeability: Louisiana Department of Transportation Avoids Liability in Multi-Car Pile-Up Case

Allocating fault in a car accident is especially difficult when involving multiple individuals. This case illustrates how the allocation of fault affects how damages are awarded and illustrates what type of expenses are compensable. 

While driving on Highway 28 East in Louisiana, Erin Wright rear-ended Christina Dauzat. Before they reached the intersection where the accident occurred, an unrelated accident occurred involving Joanne Marlow and Darrell Paulk. Paulk refused to move his car, which resulted in one of the lanes of traffic being blocked. Before the accident, a truck driven by an unknown driver drove towards Dauzat as it tried to go around the Marlow/Paulk accident. 

Dauzat filed a lawsuit against Wright and her insurer, State Farm. At a trial, the court allocated 80% fault to Wright, 10% to the unnamed truck driver, and 10% to Paulk. The trial court awarded general damages of $8,000 (after the 20% reduction from the fault of the unnamed truck driver and Paulk, neither of whom Dauzat filed a lawsuit against) and $9,741.51 in special damages. These damages did not include the $1,440.86 cost of transporting Dauzat via ambulance following the accident. Both Dauzat and Wright appealed.

Both Dauzat and Wright argued the trial court erred in allocating the fault. Dauzat claimed Wright should have been found 100% liable for the accident, whereas Wright argued Dauzat should have been assigned some percentage of fault. La. C.C. art. 2323 governs how fault is allocated between different individuals. When a rear-end collision occurs, there is a presumption the driver who rear-ended the other was negligent and followed the other vehicle too closely. See Berthiume v. Gros. 

The appellate court found the evidence presented at trial supported the trial court’s findings that Wright and the unnamed driver’s actions contributed to the accident. However, the appellate court disagreed Paulk had contributed to the accident. Although Paulk refused to move his car after he was in an accident, a subsequent accident was not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, the Dauzat-Wright accident was not within the scope of the duty he breached. The appellate court also agreed Dauzat had acted reasonably and was not partially at fault for the accident. 

Dauzat also argued the trial court erred in its award of $10,000 for general damages and failure to award the cost of her ambulance transport following the accident. Wright argued the general damages should have been even lower. Wright also argued the trial court erred in not reducing the special damages award based on the percentage of fault allocated to others. In its judgment, the trial court specifically noted Dauzat was not a credible witness. 

Based on the testimony from Dauzat’s physicians and the trial court’s credibility determination regarding Dauzat, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s general damages award. However, the appellate court found Dauzat should have been awarded the $1,440.86 cost of the ambulance that transported Dauzat to the hospital following the accident. The appellate court explained even if this transportation was unnecessary, Wright was still liable as there was no evidence Dauzat acted in bad faith in requesting ambulance transport. Additionally, the trial court agreed under La. C.C. art. 2323(B), the trial court should have reduced the special damages award by the amount of fault allocated to others besides Wright, who were not parties in the lawsuit. 

Certain aspects of the appellate court’s ruling ended up both hurting and helping both Dauzat and Wright. This case underscores the value of seasoned legal counsel, capable of dissecting the intricate threads of liability and advocating for comprehensive compensation. In this intricate choreography of fault and recovery, a skilled attorney can serve as a guiding compass, helping individuals navigate the tumultuous waters of multi-party car accident litigation.

Additional Sources: Christina Mink Dauzat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., et al.

Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Car Accidents: When Car Accidents Get Messy: How Clear Language and Resolved Claims Can Help You Win Your Lawsuit

When accidents involve children, gathering factual information regarding their physical health becomes even more crucial for building a solid case. This is particularly evident in a vehicle collision that took place in Lafayette, Louisiana. The case highlights the specific requirements for demonstrating injuries to children in an auto accident and what is and isn’t required to prove injuries to a child.

On January 19, 2015, Bradley Quoyer was backing out of a driveway onto a street in Lafayette, Louisiana, when his vehicle collided with the rear passenger side of Neosha Robertson’s vehicle. At the time of the collision, Ms. Robertson’s two minor children were in the back seat. She filed a lawsuit against the driver, Clement Bradley Quoyeser,  and his insurance company on behalf of herself and her children, claiming that they both suffered injuries.

Quoyer filed a motion asking that the children be dismissed from the lawsuit, and the trial Court granted this motion. Robertson disagreed with the ruling and therefore appealed.  

At the The Court of Appeal Third Circuit Quoyeser argued that expert testimony is required to prove the injury of the children. Because Quoyeser challenged whether the children were injured at all, he contended that there must be proof by a doctor. 

Hoping to support this argument, Quoyeser attached records of letters from Dr. Mack, who saw the children nine months after the accident and reported the collision did not cause either child’s changed behavior. Robertson then pointed the appeals court to testimony from her deposition, where she explained the children were “shaken up in the wreck, were crying, and suffered injuries” due to the impact. 

The appellate Court explained that this testimony did create a factual dispute regarding the children’s injuries, in addition to the excerpt from her deposition stating that Quoyer struck the part of the car where her children were riding. Robertson also noted testimony that showed how the children were affected by the accident and exhibited abnormal behavior, like nightmares and crying after the accident occurred.

The Appeals Court explained that, as Carrier v. Nobel Ins. Co. points out that whether an accident caused a person an injury is a question of fact. Here, the Appeals Court found the testimony of abnormal behavior and severe changes to the children’s day-to-day lives was sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and ruled in favor of Robertson, allowing the children’s claims to proceed. 

The appeals court did not rule that deposition testimony proved the children were injured. It also did not endorse Quoyser’s argument that expert testimony would be required to prove the children’s injuries. The appeals court ruling stated that facts concerning their injuries remained in dispute, allowing them to be presented at trial. 

Ultimately, this case reveals that courts still value the importance of knowing specifics regarding injuries from a vehicle crash, especially when children are involved. It’s essential, however, to make sure you hire the best attorney when these kinds of legal matters arise to ensure you AND your children receive the legal justification they deserve.

Additional Sources: NEOSHA ROBERTSON, ET AL V. THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL

Written by Berniard Law Firm Writer Brianna Saroli

Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on the presentation of facts at Trial in Louisiana: How Genuine Issues of Material Facts Can Impact a Personal Injury Case & Judicial Notice of Facts, When Can and Can’t it Be Used in Louisiana Trials