Gaines v. Lemoine

297 So.3d 775

Isaiah GAINES and Alvin Gaines

v.Paul LEMOINE, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

2019 CA 0551

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Judgment Rendered: FEBRUARY 21, 2020

Chad A. Aguillard, New Roads, Louisiana, Willie G. Johnson, Jr., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants, Isaiah Gaines and Alvin Gaines

Christopher W. Stidham, Carey M. Nichols, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Paul Lemoine

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY, AND BURRIS,¹ JJ.

BURRIS, J.

In this personal injury case, the plaintiffs, Isaiah Gaines and Alvin Gaines, appeal the trial court's judgment finding Alvin Gaines solely at fault for causing the subject car accident and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit with prejudice For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 1, 2014, Alvin and his passenger, Isaiah, were involved in an accident with Paul Lemoine at the intersection of Louisiana Highway 10 and Highway 61 in West Feliciana Parish. Alvin and Paul were both driving pickup trucks, and Paul was pulling a five-by-ten trailer with a 150-pound load.

Immediately before the accident, Alvin was stopped at the red traffic light on Highway 61 south at its intersection with Highway 10. Paul was stopped in the turning lane on Highway 61 north, waiting for the turn signal to change to green so that he could turn left onto Highway 10. Alvin and Paul both contend that they proceeded through the intersection only after their respective traffic signal turned green. Alvin and Isaiah subsequently filed this suit against Paul and his insurer, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained in the accident.²

A bench trial was held on October 10, 2017 to determine liability, medical causation, and damages. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court issued written reasons for judgment on October 31, 2017. The trial court concluded that "it is more probable than not that the plaintiff ran the red light" and, consequently, ruled in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, finding Alvin solely at fault for causing the accident.

The plaintiffs' original appeal to this court was dismissed on December 21, 2018 for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Gaines v. Lemoine , 2018-0490 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/21/18), 2018 WL 6722352 (unpublished). Following remand, a final judgment was signed on February 21, 2019, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit with prejudice. From this judgment, the plaintiffs instituted the subject appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in finding that Alvin ran a red light and in assigning him with 100% fault for causing the accident. The plaintiffs further assert that the trial court erred by finding that Paul, who was making a left turn across the plaintiffs' lane of travel, was not at fault for causing the accident. Although not specifically assigned as error, the plaintiffs assert that "in the very least," the trial court erred by failing to apply a comparative fault analysis.

APPLICABLE LAW

Standard of Review

When reviewing factual findings made by the trier of fact, including the allocation of fault, this court is required to apply the manifest error standard of review. See Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993). See also Pinn v. Pennison, 2016-0614 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/22/16), 209 So.3d 844, 847, citing Schexnayder v. Bridges, 2015-0786 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/26/16), 190 So.3d 764, 773. Linder the manifest error standard, which demands that great deference be given to the trial court's factual findings, the issue to be resolved on appeal is not whether the trial court was right or wrong, but whether its conclusions are reasonable. Adams v. Rhodia, Inc. , 2007-2110 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 798, 806, citing Stobart , 617 So.2d at 882 ; Pinn, 209 So.3d at 848, citing Schexnayder, 190 So.3d at 774. If the factual findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, a reviewing court may not reverse even though convinced that, had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Adams, 983 So.2d at 806, citing Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882-3.

This is especially true when the trial court's factual findings are based on witness credibility; for only the fact finder 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. Pinn, 209 So.3d at 847, citing Schexnayder, 190 So.3d at 773. Thus, a factfinder's conclusions, based on its decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, can virtually never be manifestly erroneous. Adams, 983 So.2d at 807, citing Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 845 (La. 1989). Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. Pinn, 209 So.3d at 847, citing Schexnayder, 190 So.3d at 773. See also Jones v. Bravata, 2018-0837 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/9/19), 280 So.3d 226, 233. Further, in reaching its conclusions, the trier of fact need not accept all of the testimony of any witness as being true or false and may believe and accept a part or parts of a witness's testimony and refuse to accept other parts. Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Co., LLC , 2018-0631 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/3/19), 281 So.3d 1, 9, writ denied. 2019-01423 (La. 11/12/19), 282 So.3d 224, citing Holmes v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. , 422 So.2d 1200, 1203-04 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1982), writ denied. 429 So.2d 133 (La. 1983).

These rules apply equally to the evaluation of expert testimony. Adams, 983 So.2d at 807, citing Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 2000-2628 (La. 4/3/01), 786 So.2d 682, 693. The opinions of expert witnesses are not binding on the trial court and are to be weighed the same as any other evidence. Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, 281 So.3d at 9 citing Holmes, 422 So.2d at 1204.

Left-Turning Motorist

It is undisputed that Paul was making a left turn when the accident occurred. A left turn is a dangerous maneuver, and a driver has a duty not to attempt the turn until he ascertains it can be completed safely.

Pourciau v. Melville, 2018-0385 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/21/18), 2018 WL 4520283, *2 (unpublished). Louisiana Revised Statute 32:122 provides:

The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall 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.

Further, vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal may cautiously enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by such arrow, but shall stop and yield the right-of-way to other traffic lawfully using the intersection. La. R.S. 32:232(l)(b). Once it has been established that a motorist was attempting to make a left turn when an accident occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the left-turning motorist to absolve himself of liability. Pourciau, 2018 WL 4520283 at *2. This burden remains despite the existence of a left-turn signal at the intersection in question, but the burden may be discharged by proof that the green arrow signal was illuminated. Id. , citing Hampton v. Marino, 97-1345 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/6/98), 725 So.2d 503, 509. Nevertheless, a left-turning motorist is required to exercise a very high degree of care, even where the motorist executes his turn on the authority of an illuminated left-turn signal. Pourciau, 2018 WL 4520283 at *2, citing Tipton v. Menard, 467 So.2d 126, 128 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1985).

Traffic Control Signals

Alvin's lane of travel was controlled by a circular traffic signal, which he maintains was green when he proceeded through the intersection. Louisiana Revised Statute 32:232 relevantly provides that vehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through, but shall stop and yield the right-of-way to other vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time such signal is exhibited. La. R.S. 32:232(l)(a). A motorist approaching an intersection who is favored with a green light cannot depend exclusively on a favorable light, but has a duty to watch for vehicles already in the intersection when the light changed; however, this duty does not extend to looking for approaching traffic that has not yet entered the intersection. Pourciau, 2018 WL 4520283 at *2, citing Hampton, 725 So.2d at 509.

ANALYSIS

Paul testified that he stopped at the red light in the left turn lane on Highway 61 north and waited for the turn signal to change to green. Paul confirmed that the arrow was "definitely green" when he proceeded "very slowly" and began to turn left, heading toward Highway 10. According to Paul, his truck was "broadsided" by the plaintiffs as he crossed Highway 61. He denied seeing Alvin's truck approaching on Highway 61 south and believes Alvin ran the red light.

Both Isaiah and Alvin testified that Alvin stopped at the red light at the intersection of Highway 61 south and Highway 10, intending to continue straight to Baton Rouge. According to the plaintiffs, Alvin proceeded through the intersection when the light turned green. As he did, the front driver's side of Alvin's truck collided with the front of Paul's truck. Alvin denied seeing Paul enter the intersection and testified that, in his opinion, Paul ran the red light.

Finally, the trial court heard testimony from Edward K. Carrick, P.E., the plaintiffs' expert in accident reconstruction. Mr. Carrick explained that, if Paul's testimony is accepted, it is more probable than not that he began to make the left turn after the traffic light (arrow) turned green, but he failed to clear the intersection with his truck and trailer before Alvin's traffic...