93-852 La.App. 3 Cir. 6/22/94, Mayo v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.
Decision Date | 22 June 1994 |
Citation | 639 So.2d 773 |
Parties | 93-852 La.App. 3 Cir |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
John Taylor Bennett, Marksville, Charles Shelby Norris, Jr., Monroe, for Lou Mayo.
Michael Thomas Pulaski, Keith W. McDaniel, New Orleans, for Nissan Motor Corp.
Renee Yvette Roy, Mansura, for Everette Mayo, Sr.
Howard N. Nugent, Jr., Alexandria, for Red River Marine.
William H. deLaunay, Jr., Alexandria, for Fischer Marine.
Before LABORDE, KNOLL, THIBODEAUX and COOKS, JJ., and CULPEPPER *, J. Pro Tem.
[93-852 La.App. 3 Cir. 1] KNOLL, Judge.
This is a maritime tort suit. Plaintiff, Louella Mayo, sustained personal injuries while a passenger in the "Fisher Marine" aluminum "john" boat owned by her and her husband, Everette Mayo, and operated by her husband, when the boat struck a tree in the Ouachita River. Plaintiff filed suit in state court under the "savings to suitors" clause, naming several defendants, including Fisher Marine, Nissan Industrial Equipment Company, and Red River Marine. The Fisher Marine boat was console-steered and powered by a 40 horsepower motor when Mayo bought it in 1976 or 1977, but it was rated for a 55 horsepower motor. During 1989 Mayo removed the console and converted the boat to a tiller-steered boat. This reconfiguration of the boat reduced the motor rating to 30 to 35 horsepower. However, Red River Marine sold and installed on the boat a 55 horsepower tiller-steered Nissan motor. Plaintiff's [93-852 La.App. 3 Cir. 2] theory of recovery, in part, was that the boat was overpowered by the 55 horsepower motor, which caused the boat/motor to go out of control. Fisher Marine filed a third-party demand against Everette Mayo and his insurer, and Nissan and Red River Marine filed third-party demands against Everette and Louella Mayo.
The third-party demands against Mayo's insurer were dismissed by summary judgment. The trial court overruled a peremptory exception to maritime jurisdiction prior to trial, and we denied a writ on the issue 1. Fisher Marine ultimately settled with plaintiff. A bench trial was held as to the claims against Nissan and Red River Marine and the third-party demands. The court found that the "overpowered" boat/motor combination was a cause of the accident and found Nissan, Red River Marine, and Fisher Marine each 11% at fault. The court also found Everette Mayo 67% at fault. The court fixed Louella Mayo's damages at $838,993. The court held that Nissan and Red River Marine were not solidarily liable for Louella Mayo's damages, but held Nissan and Red River Marine each responsible for their virile share of 11%, or $92,289.23 plus interest from the date of judicial demand. Having found Nissan and Red River Marine liable only for their virile shares, the court dismissed their third-party demands against Everette Mayo. The court also dismissed the third-party demands against Louella Mayo. The parties appeal as follows.
LOUELLA MAYO'S APPEAL
Louella Mayo contends: 1.) the trial court erred in failing to apply general maritime law to the issue of solidarity to cast each defendant liable, in solido, for the entire amount of the judgment; 2.) in the alternative, if Louisiana law applies, the court erred in failing to cast Nissan in judgment for 50% of the damages under LSA-C.C. art. 2324; 3.) the trial court erred in reducing Louella Mayo's recovery by the fault attributable to Everette Mayo; 4.) the trial court erred in awarding interest only from the date of judicial demand and not from the date of the accident; and, 5.) the trial court erred in failing to find that [93-852 La.App. 3 Cir. 3] Red River Marine was the agent of Nissan and in failing to hold Nissan liable for the fault of Red River Marine.
EVERETTE MAYO'S APPEAL
Although Everette Mayo was not cast in judgment, he appeals the apportionment of fault to him in light of Louella's appeal on the issue of solidary liability.
Red River Marine filed a motion in our court asking that Everette Mayo's appeal be dismissed. Red River Marine points out that Everette Mayo only appears in this law suit as a third-party defendant to claims filed by third-party plaintiffs, Nissan and Red River Marine. Accordingly, it argues that he lacks standing to appeal since the third-party demands were dismissed and he was not cast in judgment in his wife's main demand against Nissan and Red River Marine.
We referred Red River Marine's dismissal motion to the merits and for reasons assigned infra, we dismiss Everette Mayo's appeal.
NISSAN'S APPEAL
Nissan contends: 1.) the trial court erred in assigning any fault to Nissan because the accident was caused solely by Everette Mayo's negligence; 2.) the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding that Nissan breached a duty to warn; and 3.) the general damage award of $600,000 is excessive and should be reduced.
RED RIVER MARINE'S APPEAL
Red River Marine contends: 1.) the trial court erred when it recognized as a source of duty Red River Marine's alleged position as a seller; 2.) the trial court erred when it held that Red River Marine had breached a duty of care as per their installation of the Nissan motor; and, 3.) the trial court erred in not finding the negligent operation and ownership of the boat by Everette Mayo to be the sole cause of Louella Mayo's injuries.
TRIAL COURT'S REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
We quote in part the trial court's excellent reasons for judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Warren v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co.
- Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC v. 38.00 Acres
-
Hennegan v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co.
...require the nonsettling defendant to bear the proportion of fault attributable to an absent tortfeasor. In Mayo v. Nissan Motor Corp., 93-852 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/22/94), 639 So.2d 773, writs denied 95-0147, 0148 & 0160 (La.3/17/95), 651 So.2d 280 & 281, the Third Circuit held that limiting th......
-
Rodriguez v. Mark Walters, Sr., Perry Alexcee, Jr., Auto Club Family Ins. Co.
...v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. Inc., 02–0282, pp. 23–24 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/30/02), 837 So.2d 96, 110–11;Mayo v. Nissan Motor Corp., 639 So.2d 773, 788–89 (La.App. 3 Cir.1994).F. Damages Appellate courts are authorized to render any judgment which is just, legal and proper where the trie......