Esposito v. Davis
| Decision Date | 13 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-30176,94-30176 |
| Citation | 47 F.3d 164 |
| Parties | Yvonne ESPOSITO and Louis Esposito, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Jason C. DAVIS and MKS Productions, Inc., d/b/a Southern Lady Shows, and Essex Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. Michael Johnson, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins & Burr, P.L.C., Richard G. Duplantier, Jr., New Orleans, LA, for appellants.
Terry Bennett Loup, Morris Bart & Assoc., New Orleans, LA, for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Appellants/defendants Jason Davis ("Davis"), MKS Productions, Inc. d/b/a Southern Lady Shows ("MKS"), and Essex Insurance Company, appeal from a judgment in this trip-and-fall diversity case. Applying Louisiana substantive law to the jury's findings, the district court entered judgment for appellees/plaintiffs Yvonne Esposito and her deceased husband, Louis ("Esposito"). We AFFIRM.
As pedestrians exited at the close of an arts and crafts show, Davis, an MKS employee, was standing on an apron at an entrance of the Pontchartrain Center when he suddenly and without warning turned 180 degrees and collided with Esposito, an eighty-year-old woman. Esposito was knocked to the ground, fracturing her hip. She was taken to the hospital where she underwent hip-replacement surgery. She was hospitalized for six-weeks and was left with a twenty-percent permanent physical impairment to her leg, as well as aggravation of a pre-existing arthritic condition in her back.
The jury awarded Esposito $45,000 in medical expenses, $190,000 in general damages, and $5,000 to her husband who died after suit was filed. The jury also found Esposito twenty-five percent responsible for the accident; the district court's judgment reflects this finding.
Appellants contend that Davis was not negligent as a matter of law; challenge the jury's allocation of fault; argue for a remittitur; and claim that the district court should have excluded the testimony of an "undesignated" eyewitness. We find no merit in any of these complaints.
Duty. Appellants argue that they cannot be held liable for negligence because Davis owed no duty to Esposito. Specifically, they contend that, as a matter of law, it would be unreasonable under any circumstances to impose a duty upon a pedestrian to keep a proper lookout prior to turning around.
The Louisiana law governing trip-and-fall cases was recently detailed in Frelow v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 631 So.2d 632, 635 (La.Ct.App.1994), as follows:
Generally, negligence is defined as conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against an unreasonable risk of harm. The test for determining whether a risk is unreasonable is supplied by the following formula. The amount of caution demanded of a person by an occasion is the result of three factors: the likelihood that his conduct will injure others, taken with the seriousness of the injury if it happens, and balanced against the cost of the precaution he must take to avoid the risk. If the product of the likelihood of the injury exceeds the burden of the precautions, the risk is unreasonable and the failure to take precautions is negligence.
In Frelow, the court affirmed the jury's negligence finding when a patron tripped over a busboy's foot as he was clearing a table. Applying the test to that particular trip-and-fall, the court concluded:
Under the general principles of fault arising from LSA-C.C. art. 2315, we find that [the employee] did have a duty to the [defendant's] customers to use reasonable care not to obstruct the aisles so that the customers could travel freely between the food service stations and the tables. A reasonable man would realize that he may trip someone if he extends his leg into an aisle in a self service restaurant.
Frelow, 631 So.2d at 635. Clearly then, Louisiana law recognizes a legal duty on the part of employees to exercise reasonable care not to obstruct the flow of pedestrian traffic. Given the facts of this case and the balancing test in Frelow, it is plain that the burden imposed upon Davis to keep a proper lookout in the access area to a building, is light compared to the likelihood of serious injury when a patron is knocked to the ground. The burden of such a precaution is reasonable in order to protect customers or pedestrians in their use of the access areas to a building. Consequently, we reject appellants' contention that there is no legal duty.
Sufficiency of Evidence. Appellants also argue that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support a finding of negligence on the part of Davis. When determining legal sufficiency, we view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and draw all inferences in their favor. See Becker v. PaineWebber, Inc., 962 F.2d 524, 526 (5th Cir.1992). While state law provides the substantive rules and tests in diversity cases, the applicable federal standard of review for a jury's verdict is one of reasonableness. See Ayres v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 789 F.2d 1173, 1175 (5th Cir.1986).
The record reveals that for five or ten minutes at closing time, Davis and another employee were standing on the apron of the Pontchartrain Center talking to each other, talking to people exiting, and talking to people in the parking lot about getting a car to pick them up. Esposito and her family exited the Center and headed toward the parking lot. Davis and the other employee started to walk off. Esposito, a paid attendee of the craft show, followed behind and to the side of Davis. Esposito was walking in a straight line when Davis suddenly and sharply turned, without looking, took a step or two, and knocked her to the ground. To at least one witness, it appeared as if Davis had forgotten something because he snapped his fingers while quickly turning. Davis admitted that he did not look when he turned. Davis also admitted that he knew that elderly persons would be on the premises and exiting at this time.
We conclude that the evidence adduced at trial is legally sufficient and that a jury could reasonably conclude that Davis was negligent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG U.S., Inc.
...on damages thus is proper only when the amount awarded is “so excessive as to be the product of passion or prejudice.” Esposito v. Davis , 47 F.3d 164, 168 (5th Cir. 1995). We can alternatively lower the amount of an award if the jury's number is deemed not to be the result of passion or pr......
-
Mays v. Chevron Pipe Line Co.
...ruling on a remittitur motion for abuse of discretion. Longoria v. Hunter , 932 F.3d 360, 364 (5th Cir. 2019) ; Esposito v. Davis , 47 F.3d 164, 167 (5th Cir. 1995).III.Chevron raises three issues on appeal. First, it claims the district court misapplied the Supreme Court's Valladolid decis......
-
Globeranger Corp. v. Software AG United States, Inc.
...if the jury's award of damages is "so excessive as to be the product of passion or prejudice" on the part of the jury. Esposito v. Davis, 47 F.3d 164, 168 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Allen v. Seacoast Prods., Inc., 623 F.2d 355, 364 (5th Cir. 1980)). Alternatively, the Court may issue a remitti......
- Hill v. Knox, CIVIL NO. SA-14-CA-1132-XR (PMA)