Washington v. Taylor

334 So.3d 1060

Antoinette WASHINGTON

v.Brian TAYLOR, Elkhart Corporate Cleaning Service, Inc. and Motorists Mutual Insurance Company

Stephanie Myles and Taquilla White

v.Brian Taylor, Elkhart Cleaning Service, Motorist Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

NO. 2021-CA-0080

NO. 2021-CA-0081

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

January 26, 2022

Darleen M. Jacobs, Al A. Sarrat, Rene' D. Lovelace, THE LAW OFFICES OF DARLENE M JACOBS, 823 St. Louis Street, New Orleans, LA 70112-3415, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STEPHANIE MYLES

Isaac H. Ryan, DEUTSCH KERRIGAN & STILES, L.L.P., 755 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, BRIAN TAYLOR, ELKHART CORPORATE CLEANING SERVICE, AND MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

(Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins )

Judge Terri F. Love

This appeal arises from a minor vehicle accident. Plaintiff was a passenger in one of the vehicles and filed suit. After a second trial, the trial court found that the driver of the vehicle carrying plaintiff was ten percent at fault and the other driver was ninety percent at fault and awarded damages accordingly. The driver found to be ninety percent at fault appealed, contending that a second trial should not have been granted, that the record did not support a finding of ninety percent fault, that the trial court did not independently allocate fault, and that there was no evidence to support medical expenses.

Our review of the record reveals that the amended judgment was absolutely null, such that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting a new trial. However, the trial court committed legal error by not independently determining the apportionment of fault. After our de novo review of the second trial, we find that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the driver of the other car was at fault or that she suffered compensable injuries. We reversed the judgment of the trial court and find in favor of defendants, dismissing plaintiff's claims.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 3, 2015, Brian Taylor was driving a vehicle owned by his company, Elkhart Corporation Cleaning Service, Inc. ("Elkhart"), on Rousseau Street and started to make a left turn across Jackson Avenue. Antoinette Washington approached Jackson Avenue from the opposite direction. Ms. Washington was driving with two guest passengers, Stephanie Myles¹ and Taquilla White.² The two automobiles collided.

Ms. Washington filed a Petition for Damages against Mr. Taylor, Elkhart, and Motorist Mutual Insurance Company ("MMIC") (collectively "Defendants"), as the insurer of the other vehicle. Ms. Myles and Ms. White also filed a Claim for Damages against Defendants and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), as Ms. Washington's insurer. The two cases were consolidated.

After a one-day bench trial, the trial court found that plaintiffs failed to establish Mr. Taylor's liability or that they suffered compensable injuries. The judgment was rendered in favor of Defendants and dismissed plaintiffs’ lawsuits. The trial court issued reasons for judgment, which provided the following:

Considering the language of the Statute and testimony, Ms. Washington has an obligation to yield the right of way to Mr. Taylor because he had already entered the intersection from Rousseau Street and was in the process of turning when she preceded into the intersection. Mr. Taylor also testified that he was the first person to arrive at the intersection, that he came to a complete stop, observed traffic and was certain that his right of way was clear prior to proceeding. The Court finds that this testimony, in light of the evidence presented, is the most accurate depiction of the events that occurred. The Court also notes, Taquilla White notified plaintiffs’ [sic] counsel after trial commenced that she would not be in attendance. As such, Ms. White's claims were not considered.

Ms. Myles and Ms. White filed a Motion for New Trial because the judgment failed to mention State Farm, as Ms. Washington's insurer, in that the trial court's reasons for judgment found Ms. Washington at fault for the accident. Thus, the trial court issued an amended judgment to add that the judgment was also rendered in favor of State Farm and that the claims against State Farm were dismissed.

Ms. Myles and Ms. White filed a Motion for New Trial contending that the trial court erred by substantively amending the initial judgment in contravention with La. C.C.P. art. 1951.³ Prior to the hearing on the Motion for New Trial, a new trial court judge took over the matter. The new trial court judge held a hearing on the Motion for New Trial and reasoned as follows:

In the (inaudible) matter, plaintiffs do not argue that they have discovered new evidence since the trial that would be important to their cause. In fact, plaintiffs again re-urged the sufficiency of the evidence that was presented in [sic] initial trial.

Additionally, the original trial was a bench trial, so plaintiffs do not seek a new trial based on improper behavior of a jury. Plaintiff instead, argues that the judgment of this court and original proceeding appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence. In support of its argument, plaintiffs point out that the court found Ms. Washington at fault for the accident, as such, plaintiff [sic] contend that her liability insurer State Farm is liable for her negligence. However, the trial judge in the original proceeding found that there to [sic] be insufficient evidence presented to warrant the award of damages.

In the original trial only Ms. Miles [sic] provided testimony regarding the extent of her injuries, testifying that she has sustained injuries that prevented her from conducting daily activities with ease. However, she also testified that she had been in an accident three months prior to the subject accident, again while riding in Ms. Washington's car. This contrasts with Ms. Washington's testimony at trial that her Nissan Altima had never been in an accident, and her damage to her vehicle was caused by the collision with Mr. Taylor.

The court finds that the original trial judge made a credibility of determination based on the testimony of evidence provided in the original proceeding. Plaintiffs argue that certified medical records and prescription list were submitted for both Ms. White and Ms. Miles [sic]. However, the court still concluded that this was insufficient evidence of damages. Accordingly, the judgment of the court in the original proceedings did not appear to be contrary to the law and the evidence.

* * *

This court finds no such grounds that would warrant a new trial. After review of the record and the judgment at issue, the court is convinced that the same determinations would be made in a new proceeding.

Additionally, it should be noted that Ms. White failed to appear at the original trial and present her case. Therefore, considering the record and applicable law, this court finds that the plaintiff's [sic] motion for new trial is hereby denied.

And I just kind of want to point out. Obviously you guys know that you were before a different judge in that particular matter. However, I think that based on our review of the record and everything that was presented, I believe that the credibility of the witnesses was a big determination on why that particular judge ruled in that favor. But based on the law, I haven't been presented with anything that would allow a motion for new trial.

* * *

As far as the amended judgment, I'll have to go back and look at that. I have to go back. And then sometimes what we've had to do with judgment that were signed by Judge Johnson, I would usually contact him and find out what was his process and what was his thought pattern on what was going on.

* * *

So on your particular case, I'll contact him and see which judgment was most accurate for him because I don't have a copy of the transcript on what was actually said. And, of course, I wasn't there. So I'll contact him and see if I can get any information from him. And if I can, then I'll communicate that back to you. And it we can't, then I'll set you guys for a status conference, so that we can have the correct judgment as it relates to the case.

Subsequently, however, and contrary to the above-quoted transcript, the trial court issued a judgment granting Ms. Myles, solely, a new trial.

Following the granting of Ms. Myles a new trial, Ms. Washington filed a Motion for Devolutive Appeal from the first trial court's judgment, amended judgment, and the new trial court's judgment granting Ms. Myles a new trial. This Court dismissed Ms. Washington's appeal as untimely. Washington v. Taylor , 19-0924, 19-0925 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/17/20), ––– So. 3d ––––, 2020 WL 3264070.

The trial court signed Ms. Myles’ proposed judgment, which awarded Ms. Myles $14,000.00 in general damages plus $5,134.51 for medical expenses for a total of $19,134.51. The judgment allocated ninety percent fault to Mr. Taylor, $17,221.06, and ten percent fault, $1,913.45, to Ms. Washington.

Defendants filed a Motion for New Trial contending that the judgment was clearly contrary to the law and evidence. During the hearing on the Motion for New Trial, the following colloquy occurred:

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, on behalf of the Defendant, Brian Taylor, we just would like the Court to provide some reasons for us as to why the second trial came out 90 percent on Brian Taylor. The first trial came out a hundred percent on Antoinette Washington. And we

COURT: And, counsel, wait. Let me -- let me stop you right there.

(OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS)

COURT: So when we looked at -- when we looked at that allegation, I didn't say anything about anybody. What -- I didn't allocate a 90 percent so I wasn't sure how was that... I don't know if somebody assumed that.

...