Faul v. Robinson

316 So.3d 1077

Tamatha FAUL

v.Louis ROBINSON, Allstate Insurance Company, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

2019 CA 1450

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: DECEMBER 16, 2020

Marcus J. Plaisance, Mark D. Plaisance, Prairieville, Louisiana, Brian J. Prendergast, Joseph R. Cataldie, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Appellant Plaintiff—Tamatha Faul

Matthew L. Mann, Kellye R. Grinton, Kirk D. Pfefferle, Beau C. Garon, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Michele Trowbridge Barreca, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Appellees Defendants—Allstate Insurance Company and Louis Robinson

Before: McClendon, Welch, and Holdridge, JJ.

WELCH, J.

The plaintiff, Tamatha Faul, appeals a judgment rendered in accordance with a jury verdict, as well as a judgment denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and alternative motion for new trial, after the jury found that she was not injured in a motor vehicle accident. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The accident at issue occurred on September 19, 2015, when the 2016 BMW X4 owned and operated by Lawrence Faucheaux, was rear-ended by a 2002 Chevrolet Suburban owned and operated by the defendant, Louis Robinson. Mrs. Faul was a guest passenger in the backseat of the BMW, along with her stepdaughter Kelly Faucheux, Mr. Faucheux's wife. Mrs. Faul's husband, Robert Faul, was a guest passenger in the front seat. The Faucheuxes and Fauls had left the Faucheux residence and were in bumper-to-bumper LSU football game-day traffic on Gardere Lane in Baton Rouge when Mr. Robinson's suburban struck the BMW from the rear. Mr. Faucheux and Mr. Robinson's vehicles were insured by Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate").

Mrs. Faul filed the instant suit against Mr. Robinson, Allstate (in its capacity as Mr. Robinson's liability insurer¹ and in its capacity as Mr. Faucheux's uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") insurer² ), and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Mrs. Faul's UM insurer.³ Mrs. Faul sought damages for cervical spine injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the motor vehicle collision.

The matter was tried before a jury on February 4-7, 2019, on the issues of liability and damages. At the conclusion of trial, the jury returned a 9-3 verdict finding that Mrs. Faul proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Robinson was at fault in causing the September 19, 2015 accident, but that Mrs. Faul was not injured as result of the accident. Accordingly, the jury did not award Mrs. Faul any damages. The trial court signed a judgment in conformity with the jury's verdict on March 4, 2019. Arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence presented at trial, Mrs. Faul filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV"), or alternatively, a motion for new trial, which were denied by the trial court pursuant to a judgment signed on May 8, 2019. Mrs. Faul now appeals the trial court's March 4, 2019 and May 8, 2019 judgments.

LAW

In a personal injury suit, liability is determined under the duty-risk analysis, which requires that the plaintiff prove: (1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard of care, (2) the defendant failed to conform his conduct to the appropriate standard of care, (3) the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiffs injuries, (4) the defendant's substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiffs injuries, and (5) actual damages. Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 2009-1408 (La. 3/16/10), 35 So. 3d 230, 240. In order to recover, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, both the existence of the injuries and a causal connection between the injuries and the accident. Richardson v. Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company, 2014-1587 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/10/15), 181 So. 3d 61, 64 (citing Kelley v. General Insurance Company of America, 2014-0180 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/23/14), 168 So. 3d 528, 543, writs denied, 2015-0157 (4/10/15), 163 So.3d 814, 2015-0165 (La. 4/10/15), 163 So. 3d 816 ).

It is well-settled that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him and is responsible for all natural and probable consequences of his tortious conduct. Touchard v. Slemco Electric Foundation, 99-3577 (La. 10/17/00), 769 So. 2d 1200, 1204. Nevertheless, the tortfeasor cannot be held liable for injuries which are not attributable to the tortious conduct or wrongful act. Sanders v. Collins, 551 So. 2d 644, 651 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1989), writ denied, 556 So. 2d 1261 (La. 1990). Thus, a tortfeasor is only liable for damages caused by his negligent act, not damages caused by separate, independent, or intervening causes. Richardson, 181 So. 3d at 64 ; Kelley, 168 So. 3d at 543. However, where it is established that the defendant's negligent action aggravated a pre-existing injury or condition, he must compensate the victim for the full extent of that aggravation. Touchard, 769 So. 2d at 1204.

On appeal, Mrs. Faul contends that she met her burden of proving that she suffered injuries as a result of the accident and that the jury's verdict to the contrary was manifestly erroneous because the unrefuted medical evidence demonstrated that her neck injuries were caused and/or aggravated by the accident. A jury's determination on causation, i.e., whether an accident caused the plaintiff's injuries, is a factual question that should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error. Thongsavanh v. Schexnayder, 2009-1462 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/7/10), 40 So. 3d 989, 1001, writ denied, 2010-1295 (La. 9/24/10), 45 So. 3d 1074 ; see also Detraz v. Lee, 2005-1263 (La. 1/17/07), 950 So. 2d 557, 561. Under the manifest error standard, the appellate court does not decide whether the jury was right or wrong; rather it is required to consider the entire record to determine whether a reasonable factual basis exists for the finding, and whether the finding is manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 2014-2592 (La. 12/8/15), 193 So. 3d 1110, 1116.

Reasonable persons frequently can and do disagree regarding causation in particular cases. But where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.

Hayes, 193 So. 3d at 1116. When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error-clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the jury's findings; for only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding and belief in what is said. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). Accordingly, appellate review of the factual circumstances and evidence of the case will not be the basis for reversal of the trial court's judgment, in the absence of manifest error, even if the court of appeal is convinced that, had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Rosell, 549 So. 2d at 844. The reviewing court must review the record in its entirety to determine whether the factfinder's finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Stobart v. State through Dep't of Transp. and Dev., 617 So. 2d 880, 882-83 (La. 1993).

The Louisiana Supreme Court applies a two-part test to determine if a factfinder's determinations warrant reversal: (1) the 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 finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). Graves v. Page, 96-2201 (La. 11/7/97), 703 So. 2d 566, 573.

Also at issue on appeal is the May 8, 2019 judgment denying Mrs. Faul's motion for JNOV and alternative motion for new trial. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1811 provides that a party may move for a JNOV and that a motion for new trial may be joined with the motion. A JNOV can be granted only when the trial court finds that reasonable minds could not reach a contrary verdict. Adams v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 2000-0424 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/14/01), 804 So. 2d 679, 687, writ denied, 2002-0448 (La. 4/19/02), 813 So. 2d 1090 (citing Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000-0445 (La. 11/28/00), 774 So. 2d 84, 89 ). The trial court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Adams, 804 So. 2d at 687.

In general, the standard of review of a JNOV on appeal is twofold. First, we must determine whether the jury verdict is supported by competent evidence and is not wholly unreasonable. If the verdict is supported by competent evidence and not wholly unreasonable, then the trial court may not set it aside. To make this determination, we must, after considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, find that it points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict on the issue. Second, after determining that the trial court correctly applied its standard of review as to the jury verdict, the appellate court reviews the JNOV using the manifest error standard of review. Daigle v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, 94-0304 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/5/95), 655 So. 2d 431, 436.

DISCUSSION

At trial, the jury was presented with evidence regarding the nature of the rear-end collision. Mr. Faucheaux, the owner and driver of the BMW, testified that at the time of the accident, he was stopped at a red traffic light at the intersection of Gardere Lane and Nicholson Drive in bumper-to-bumper post-LSU gameday traffic. Once the traffic light turned green, he proceeded slowly through the light, but because of the traffic, he...