Theriot v. Lasseigne

This suit arises out of a tragic traffic accident in the early morning hours of December, 1989, at the intersection of Main Street (La. Hwy. 31) and Bridge Street (La. Hwy. 96) in the Town of St. Martinville. A truck driven by Dean Lasseigne struck a car containing seven passengers, driven by Travis Courville, as it attempted a left turn onto Bridge Street heading south on Main Street. The impact, which was on the passenger’s side, knocked the car into a post of a building at the corner. The passenger in the right front passenger’s seat, Jarrod Courville, was killed instantly and the other occupants were seriously injured.

The parents of the passengers brought actions against Travis Courville; Dean Lass-eigne; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the insurer of both Courville and Lasseigne; The City of St. Martinville; Teche Bank & Trust Company; and the State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). Prior to trial, settlement was reached with State Farm, The City of St. Martinville, and Teche Bank and Trust; in effect only DOTD remained as a defendant by the time of trial.

The cases were consolidated by the trial court and the issues of liability and damages were bifurcated. Plaintiffs brought actions against DOTD under theories of both negli-genee (La.C.C. art. 2315) and strict liability (La.C.C. art. 2317). Following a bench trial on the issue of liability, the trial court rendered judgment allocating sixty percent fault to Courville and forty percent to Lass-eigne.

Plaintiffs appealed the judgment of the trial court, and the court of appeal reversed, finding manifest error on the part of the trial court. The court of appeal assigned thirty percent fault to Travis Courville and thirty percent fault to DOTD, and affirmed the trial court’s assignment of forty percent fault to Dean Lasseigne.

After a thorough review of the record, finding no manifest error, we hereby reverse the court of appeal and reinstate the trial court’s judgment. An examination of the entire record supports the trial court’s finding that the cause of the accident is solely attributable to the negligence of Travis Cour-ville and Dean Lasseigne.

On December 2, 1989, Travis Courville worked the three to eleven shift. After work, he went home, showered and changed clothes, and then picked up a twelve-pack of beer on the way to meet a friend at the Bandstand, a local nightspot. Courville testified he drank five or six beers between 11:30 P.M. and 2:00 A.M. At 2:00 A.M., when the Bandstand closed, Courville and a group of friends left for a party in his car. There were seven young people in Courville’s two-door Honda Prelude, four in the back seat and three in the front. The front seating area consisted of two bucket seats. Terri Lynn Boudreaux, whom Courville was seeing at the time, was seated on the console between the seats which also housed the five speed manual stick shift.

Courville testified at trial that the radio was probably on, but he could not recall whether or not he was talking to Terri or anyone else immediately preceding the accident. The route to the party took Courville south down Main Street where he planned to turn left onto Bridge Street. Courville had driven down Main Street hundreds of times and had turned left onto ^Bridge Street at this intersection many times.

At about the same time that Courville left the Bandstand, Dean Lasseigne left a local lounge where he was shooting pool that evening from about 8:15 P.M. until 1:50 A.M. Lasseigne testified he had consumed six to ten beers while at the lounge and had eaten nothing since lunch around noon. He admitted he had a “buzz” on and was feeling “high”.

The intersection of Main and Bridge streets is what is known as an “offset intersection.” The centerline of Main Street north of its intersection with Bridge Street lies approximately fifteen feet west of the centerline of Main Street south of its intersection with Bridge Street. The intersection is in a commercial area and there are parking lanes on the west side of Main Street both north and south of Bridge Street. The posted speed on this stretch of Main Street is 25 M.P.H. Both streets became part of the state highway system at least fifty years ago and the configuration of the intersection has been virtually unchanged since its early use, which according to testimony at trial, was probably as a wagon path to the church on the southeast corner of the intersection or to businesses in the area. There is a traffic light at the intersection which cycles green-yellow-red.

ULasseigne was headed north on Main Street on his way home when he stopped for a red light at the intersection of Main and Port streets, one block south of Bridge Street. When the light turned green, Lass-eigne accelerated to between 35 and 50 M.P.H. as he approached the intersection of Main and Bridge Streets. At the same time, the light at the intersection of Main and Bridge streets also turned green as Courville approached the intersection heading south. Two vehicles preceded Courville through the intersection and continued south on Main Street. Courville was following one car length behind a black Chevrolet Blazer which had darkened windows preventing a following driver from seeing through the vehicle and perhaps detecting lights of other vehicles through the glass.

The offset of the intersection requires drivers proceeding straight through the intersection to move to the left after crossing the intersection. This movement can create temporary blind spots for the drivers behind them and can also obscure them from sight of vehicles heading north. This obscurement is increased when large vehicles, or as in this case, vehicles with darkly tinted windows, precede a turning vehicle through the intersection.

Courville did not come to a complete stop at the intersection, but looked south down Main Street to the extent his vision would allow, which he testified was sixty to ninety feet. Seeing nothing coming, he followed the Blazer through the intersection and proceeded to execute a left turn onto Bridge Street. Lasseigne, heading north, saw Courville’s car only an instant before the collision. The passenger seated on the front right, Jarrod Courville, was killed instantly and the other passengers were seriously injured.

Plaintiffs argued DOTD was at fault by failing to maintain the intersection in reasonably safe condition. Also, plaintiffs contended that the misalignment or offset nature of the intersection allowed blind spots which were unreasonably dangerous to motorists and presented expert testimony in support of their contention.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court recognized that at this particular intersection the offset of the lanes allows blind spots caused by preceding vehicles that can obscure the approach of oncoming vehicles which are too close for a left turn to be made safely. However, the trial court noted that a left turning driver has a duty to wait the few seconds necessary to have a clear view so as to safely negotiate the turn. The trial court recognized that blind spots can occur at all intersections depending on the relative sizes and positions of the vehicles and |fithat preceding vehicles create blind spots on virtually all highways. Additionally, the trial court concluded that it is impossible to design a highway free from all blind spots and, thus, the misalignment of the intersection did not create an unreasonable risk of harm to left turning motorists. Significantly, the trial court found the cause of the accident and of plaintiffs’ damages to be the concurrent negligence of Travis Courville and Dean Lass-eigne and assigned one hundred percent fault to the two drivers. We find implicit in the court’s finding and assignment of fault that a breach of duty by DOTD was not a cause-in-fact of the accident.

Plaintiffs brought this suit against DOTD under theories of both negligence and strict liability. Under either theory, the duty owed is the same and a finding of cause-in-fact is essential to the assessment of liability. Ryland v. Liberty Lloyds Ins. Co., 93-1712 (La. 1/14/94), 630 So.2d 1289 (La.1994). Cause-in-fact is usually a “but for” inquiry which tests whether or not the injury would have occurred “but for” the defendant’s substandard conduct. Faucheaux v. Terrebonne Consol. Govt., 616 So.2d 289 (La.1993). A finding of no cause-in-faet ends the inquiry into liability.

Cause-in-fact is a factual question to be determined by the factfinder. Cay v. DOTD, 93-0887 (La. 1/14/94), 631 So.2d 393 (La.1994). A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or unless it is “clearly wrong.” Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106 (La.1990). In order to reverse a factfinder’s determinations of fact, an appellate court must review the record in its entirety and meet the following two-part test as set out by this court in Stobart v. State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993):

1) An appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court, and

2) the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the factfinder is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).

j^See also Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987).

In reversing the trial court, the court of appeal found that “more probable than not” Courville would have seen Lass-eigne’s vehicle approaching in time to take evasive action if DOTD had constructed a left turn lane and re-directed “through” traffic at the intersection, as suggested by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Dart. Alternatively, the court found that had DOTD changed the light synchronization at Port and Bridge Streets, “more probable than not” the accident would not have occurred because the speed of the Lasseigne vehicle would have been reduced and Courville’s car would have cleared the intersection before Lasseigne’s car reached it. However, a thorough review of the record reveals that a reasonable factual basis exists for the trial court’s finding that the negligence of Courville and Lasseigne was the cause of the accident, and that the trial court was not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in its assignment of fault.

Both plaintiffs and defendants presented experts at trial who were well qualified in their fields. Dr. Olin Dart, who testified for plaintiffs, has a Ph.D. from Texas A & M in Civil Engineering with an emphasis in highway design and traffic engineering. Dr. Dart was qualified as an expert in traffic engineering, highway design, traffic safety, and accident reconstruction.

Dr. Walton, who has a contract with the State’s department of risk litigation, testified as an expert for DOTD. Dr. Walton has a Ph.D. in Engineering with a research emphasis in the areas of roadway lighting, driver visual performance, and visibility of objects. Dr. Walton was qualified as an expert in traffic engineering, highway design engineering, human factors engineering, and accident reconstruction.

Dr. Dart prepared a number of charts projecting possible “cones of obscurement” caused by the geometrical configurations resulting from the relative positions of the vehicles as they may have moved through the intersection on the night of the accident. Ironically, the trial court’s judgment is supported by Dr. Dart’s own testimony. Dr. Dart testified that a resulting obscurement exists for “only an instant” and that as vehicles move through the intersection, the alignment of the vehicles and the obscurement changes. Furthermore, Dr. Dart did not 17perform a reconstruction of the accident and could not testify as to what obseure-ments actually existed that night or exactly how long they may have lasted.

As a solution to the obscurement problem, Dr. Dart suggested that the right lane of traffic heading in a southerly direction on Main Street could have been expanded to two lanes by utilizing the parking lane for through traffic and making the existing lane a left turn lane. He testified that had the left turn lane existed and been in use, Cour-ville would likely have been able to see Lass-eigne’s truck stopped at the light in the next block and would have had more time to safely exit the intersection. Although this testimony may be valid evidence of possible improvements, the fact that these specific improvements were not made by DOTD does not lead inexorably to a finding of unreasonable dangerousness. Because the trial court found that the configuration of the intersection was not the cause of the plaintiffs injuries, we need not address hypothetical measures for its improvement.

Dr. Walton, testifying for DOTD, did not dispute the misalignment of the intersection, but attributed the accident solely to driver error based on his assessment of the total situation that night from a human-factors engineering perspective. Dr. Walton specifically noted the situation in Travis Courville’s car on the night of the accident. He testified that from a human-factors engineering standpoint, a driver can only pay attention to a certain number of factors in his environment without “loadshedding” or giving less attention to any particular task.

Testimony at trial revealed that the ear was overcrowded, the radio was on, one girl was seated on the console where the stick shift was and could have interfered with Courville’s ability to down shift, and Cour-ville may have been conversing with the passengers at the time he began his left turn onto Bridge Street. Dr. Walton testified that these factors could have, and likely did, interfere with Courville’s ability to pay attention to what was going on around him traffic-wise.

Furthermore, Dr. Dart admitted that the accident would not have occurred had Lass-eigne been driving at the speed limit of 25 M.P.H. or even exceeding it at 35 M.P.H. He also testified: “If the Lasseigne vehicle was obeying the speed limit, there would have been over two seconds of time there from the time that the vehicle had first become visible until it entered and reached the intersection, and that would probably be about enough time, almost enough time to I¡¡clear the intersection.”

Courville testified that when he began the turn, he could only see sixty to ninety feet down Main Street. Even at the posted speed of 25 M.P.H., he would only have had almost enough time to clear the intersection if a vehicle had been within his range of sight. The trial court clearly could have found Courville was negligent in not waiting until he could see a safe distance before beginning his left hand turn and that his negligence combined with the excessive speed of the Lasseigne vehicle were the causes-in-fact of the accident.

The testimony of Courville himself showed that he failed to exercise the care and caution expected of drivers executing a left turn. A driver making a left turn has a statutory duty, under La.R.S. 32:122 to “yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.” “A left turn is one of the most dangerous maneuvers a motorist may execute and requires the exercise of great caution.” Thomas v. Petrolane Gas Service, 588 So.2d 711 (La.App.2d Cir.1991), writ denied 590 So.2d 1201 (La.1992). Harper v. State Farm, 511 So.2d 1283 (La.App.2d Cir.1987), Ebey v. Coggins, 474 So.2d 1352 (La.App.2d Cir.1985). Before attempting a left turn, a motorist should ascertain whether it can be completed safely. Thomas, 588 So.2d at 717.

At the time Courville began his turn, he knew he could only see sixty to ninety feet down Main Street, not far enough, according to the experts, to assure a safe left turn onto Bridge Street under any circumstances. Courville was intimately familiar with the intersection and was aware of the added time it might take to execute a left turn. The testimony of Dr. Dart indicated, and the trial court found, that whatever visual obscurement existed which limited Courville’s vision to sixty to ninety feet would have disappeared had he only waited a few seconds.

Furthermore, Lasseigne was significantly exceeding the speed limit, traveling 35-50 M.P.H. in a 25 M.P.H. zone. By his own admission, he had a “buzz” on and felt “high,” having consumed six to ten beers in the hours prior to the accident. Both experts testified that had Lasseigne been obeying the speed limit the accident could not have occurred and the trial | scourt could reasonably have concluded that “but-for” the speeding of Dean Lasseigne, the accident would not have occurred.

Given a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court did not commit manifest error in finding the sole cause of the accident to be attributable to the negligence of Dean Lasseigne and Travis Courville and that implicitly a breach of duty by DOTD was not a cause-in-fact of the accident.

Significantly, the court of appeal discounted the testimony of DOTD’s expert, Dr. Walton, finding “his ultimate assignment of fault [to driver error] did not result from any finding based on the laws of physics and mathematics,” and that “[a]n expert’s approach to fault finding, which is not scientifically rooted should not supplant the flexible, unbiased and reasoned analysis articulated by our courts in assessing delictual responsibility in such eases.” The court of appeal, in its opinion, stated it found Dr. Dart’s testimony more persuasive. However, both experts had excellent credentials and were qualified in their respective fields by the trial court.

Where the testimony of expert witnesses differ, it is the responsibility of the trier of fact to determine which evidence is the most credible. Sistler, 558 So.2d at 1111. In Stobart, we said:

However, where documents or objective evidence so contradict the witness’s story, or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face, that a reasonable factfinder would not credit the witness’s story, the court of appeal may find manifest error or clear wrongness even in a finding purportedly based upon a credibility determination.... Nonetheless this Court has emphasized that “the reviewing court must always keep in mind that ‘if the trial court’s or jury’s findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.’” (citations omitted).

Credibility determinations are subject to the strictest deference and the manifest error-clearly wrong standard demands great deference for the trier of fact’s findings. Rosell v. Esco, 549 So.2d 840, 844-45 (La.1989). Where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883; Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973). The issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong but whether the factfinder’s conclusion was a reasonable one. Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882. The reviewing court may not disturb reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact when viewed in light of the record in its entirety even though it feels its evaluations are more reasonable. Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882.

The trial court apparently gave more weight to the testimony of Dr. Walton, who attributed the cause of the accident solely to driver error, and we cannot say the trial court was manifestly wrong in doing so. Furthermore, the court need not have chosen between the experts in forming its opinion; the facts alone provide a basis for the trial court’s decision.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we find that the trial court did not commit manifest error in finding that the cause of the accident was solely attributable to the negligence of Travis Courville and Dean Lasseigne. We therefore reverse and reinstate the trial court’s decision. Because allocation of fault is a factual determination subject to the manifest error rule, and because we find the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in its allocation, we reinstate the trial court’s allocation of fault assigning forty percent fault to Dean Lasseigne and sixty percent to Travis Courville.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned above, the judgment of the court-of appeal is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

LEMMON, J. concurs and assigns reasons.

WATSON, J., dissents believing that the Court of Appeal was correct in assigning a percentage of fault to DOTD.

ORTIQUE, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

Marcus, J., not on panel. See La.S.Ct. Rule IV, Part II, § 3.

Judge Charles A. Marvin, Chief Judge, Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, sitting in place of Justice James L. Dennis.

. Main Street is a part of and continuation of La. Highway 31.

Bridge Street is a part of and continuation of La. Highway 96.

. La.C.C. art. 2315 states in part:

Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.

. La.C.C. art. 2317 provides in part:

We are responsible, not only for the damages occasioned by our own act, but for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom we are answerable, or of the things which we have in our custody.

. Theriot v. Lasseigne, 624 So.2d 1267 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1993).

.Although the trial court did not mention the alcohol consumption of the drivers in its reasons for judgment, and no expert testimony was presented regarding the effects of the alcohol consumption on the judgment of either Courville or Lasseigne, the trial court could have reasonably found that the alcohol consumption may have played a role in the combined negligence of the parties. Expert testimony is not necessary when a factfinder can reasonably draw inferences based on his own knowledge and experience. See La.Code Evid. art. 701, 702. See also, Hastings v. Baton Rouge General Hospital, 498 So.2d 713 (La.1986).

. Duty-risk analysis is frequently used in resolving questions of negligence. As we recently set forth in Faucheaux v. Terrebonne Consol. Govt., 615 So.2d 289, 292 (La.1993), there are four questions which must be considered in applying duty-risk analysis:

1) Was the conduct in question a cause-in-fact of the resulting harm?

2) What if any, duties were owed by the respective parties?

3) Were the requisite duties breached?

4) Was the risk and harm caused within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?

Id. at 292. See also, Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La.1987).

Under strict liability, the plaintiff must prove "1) the thing which caused the damage was in the custody of the defendant; 2) the thing contained a “defect (i.e., it had a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff); and 3) the “defective” condition of the thing caused the plaintiff's injuries.” Oster v. Department of Transportation & Development, 582 So.2d 1285, 1288 (La.1991); Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106 (La.1990); Loescher v. Parr, 324 So.2d 441 (La.1975).

. Under each scenario, the assumption was made that the windows of the vehicle which preceded the Courville vehicle through the intersection would be darkened to the point headlights or other vehicles would not be visible through them.

. He concluded that the intersection is unreasonably dangerous in normal use because there is an obscurement every time one vehicle precedes another through the intersection.

. Dr. Dart testified that due to the offset nature of the intersection it could take a driver slightly longer to complete a left turn than at a non-offset intersection, depending on the speed of the turning vehicle.