Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service

• Decision Date: 26 January 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2005-C-2344.,No. 2005-C-1457.,No. 2005-C-2520.,2005-C-1457.,2005-C-2344.,2005-C-2520.
• Parties: Harold ALEX, Jr., et al. v. RAYNE CONCRETE SERVICE, et al.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

951 So.2d 138

Harold ALEX, Jr., et al. v. RAYNE CONCRETE SERVICE, et al.

No. 2005-C-1457.

No. 2005-C-2344.

No. 2005-C-2520.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 26, 2007.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 2007.

Allen & Gooch, Charles M. Kreamer, Robert A. Robertson, Lafayette, for Applicant (2005-C-1457).

Harold D. Register, Jr., Lafayette, Johnson, Stiltner & Rahman, Patricia J. Delpit, Baton Rouge, for Respondent (2005-C-1457).

Allen & Gooch, Charles M. Kreamer, Robert A. Robertson, Lafayette, for Applicant (2005-C-2344).

Harold D. Register, Jr., Lafayette, Johnson, Stiltner & Rahman, Patricia J. Delpit, Baton Rouge, for Respondent (2005-C-2344).

Harold D. Register, Jr., Lafayette, for Applicant (2005-C-2520).

Allen & Gooch, Charles M. Kreamer, Robert A. Robertson, Lafayette, Patricia J. Delpit, Baton Rouge, for Applicant (2005-C-2520).

KNOLL, J.

We granted these consolidated writs to resolve a split among the courts of appeal regarding whether a Batson/Edmonson¹ challenge in a civil trial must be taken to the appellate court by supervisory writ or whether it may be considered on appeal following the conclusion of the trial. Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service, 05-1457 (La.1/27/06), 922 So.2d 524. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we hold an intermediate appellate court may review a Batson/Edmonson challenge in a civil case on supervisory writ application or on appeal. Further, on the merits of the challenge in this case, we affirm the court of appeal's ruling that the trial court erred in granting a peremptory challenge of a juror in violation of Batson/Edmonson. However, we reverse and set aside that part of the appellate court judgment affected by its de novo review, and remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter arises out of a personal injury lawsuit Harold Alex, Jr. ("Alex") brought against Rayne Concrete Service ("Rayne Concrete") and its insurer, Employers Mutual Casualty Company. Alex sustained an alleged work-related injury to his lower back on October 17, 1995 when his employer, Louisiana Concrete Specialist ("LCS"), was pouring and finishing the decking around a swimming pool Professional Pools was constructing at a residence in Rayne, Louisiana. Alex was injured when an employee of Rayne Concrete, who was driving the concrete truck, lowered the trough through which the concrete was poured onto Alex's back.²

The matter was first tried to a jury on December 1, 1998, but resulted in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the liability issue. A second jury trial was held on December 18, 2000, and the jury returned a verdict finding Alex 80% at fault, and Rayne Concrete 20% at fault, and awarding damages totaling $123,771.00. Alex filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, alternatively, for a new trial. Alex's motion for new trial was granted and affirmed on appeal.³ Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service, 01-1535 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 1189.

This matter was tried before a jury a third time from July 12, 2004 to July 15, 2004. After jury selection, Alex made a Batson/Edmonson challenge objecting to the striking of four potential jurors. The trial court rejected this challenge, and Alex did not seek review of this decision by writ application. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury rendered a verdict apportioning fault 45% to Alex, 50% to Rayne Concrete, and 5% to LCS, and awarded damages totaling $76,000.00.

Alex appealed, alleging, among other things, the trial court's ruling on the Batson/Edmonson challenge was manifestly erroneous. The court of appeal accepted this matter for hearing en banc for the purpose of determining whether a party must seek review of a Batson/Edmonson challenge by supervisory writ application or whether the party can wait until the conclusion of the trial to seek appellate review. After considering the split among the circuits on this issue, the court of appeal held:

After considering the matter, we find that the precepts of judicial economy and fundamental fairness would be better served by allowing a party to a civil suit to have his Batson/Edmonson challenge heard on appeal, rather than solely on application for supervisory writ. Other than the case law cited above, we base this finding on several other reasons. First, on the grounds of judicial economy, we note the burden and strain that would be placed on an attorney, especially a sole practitioner or a member of a small firm, if required to file a writ application during trial. This is especially true in those instances where the trial court refuses to grant a stay of the jury trial while awaiting a review of its decision. Second, we note the impracticality of requiring this type of challenge to be taken upon a writ application. If the trial court refuses to grant a stay of the proceedings and the jury trial continues, a mistrial would have to be declared if the challenger's writ is granted and the appellate court holds that the trial court's decision is erroneous in dismissing the affected jurors. Moreover, if the trial court were to grant a stay, it would be taxing on the jury venire as, depending on the decision reached, the excluded venire members, the jury, and the rest of the venire would have to return to court to complete jury selection and then the trial. Thus, in these two instances judicial economy would be impeded.

With regard to fundamental fairness, we note, as did the first circuit in Hurts [v. Woodis, 95-2166 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/28/96),] 676 So.2d 1166, that the review of a trial court's ruling on a party's challenge of a juror for cause is routinely reviewed on appeal. As found by the first circuit, we find no meaningful distinction between this type of ruling and a trial court's ruling on a party's Batson/Edmonson challenge. Further, as we pointed out, Batson challenges are taken up on appeal in criminal cases all the time. We can find no distinction between Batson/Edmonson challenges in the context of criminal and civil matters. Finally, the challenge in Edmonson was considered by the United States Supreme Court on appeal.

Considering the foregoing, we reverse our opinion in Adams v. Canal Indemnity Co., 99-1190 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/10/00), 760 So.2d 1197, writs denied, 00-1636, 00-1637, 00-1640 (La.9/22/00), 769 So.2d 1213. Although we will still consider Batson/Edmonson challenges via writ applications, we will also address such issues on appeal. The remaining issues in this case will be addressed by the original panel to which it was assigned.

Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service, 04-1555 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/6/05), 902 So.2d 563 (en banc).

As a result of this en banc ruling, the court of appeal also considered plaintiff's remaining issues in a separate opinion by the original panel assigned to the case. The court of appeal held the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's Batson/Edmonson challenge to Rayne Concrete's systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury. The court of appeal concluded the trial judge committed legal error by allowing a peremptory challenge of Reva Mae Charlot, an African-American woman, which deprived Alex of a jury of his peers. Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service, 04-1555 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/14/05), 915 So.2d 931, 937. Recognizing this was the third jury trial, the court of appeal conducted a de novo review rather than remanding the case for a new trial. Id. After considering plaintiff's arguments that the trial court erred in admitting certain medical records, and that the jury erred in apportioning 45% fault to Alex and in its assessment of damages, the court of appeal apportioned 20% fault to Alex and 80% to Rayne Concrete, and awarded Alex $75,000.00 in general damages, $13,000 in past medical expenses, and $13,000 in past lost wages. The appellate court further apportioned costs 20% to Alex and 80% to Rayne Concrete. Id. at 938-948.

We granted and consolidated defendants' writ applications, in which they allege the court of appeal erred in reversing the trial court's Batson/Edmonson ruling, in failing to conduct a harmless error analysis to determine whether the exclusion of the juror was harmless, and in apportioning 80% fault to Rayne Concrete. Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service, 05-2344 (La.1/27/06), 922 So.2d 525. We also granted and consolidated Alex's writ applications which alleged the court of appeal erred in conducting a de novo review, in finding defendants presented plausible reasons for challenging prospective jurors Thomas and Jordan, in admitting certain medical records, in apportioning 20% fault to Alex, and in its assessment of damages, and in taxing 20% of the costs of the appeal to Alex. Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service, 05-2520 (La.5/5/06), 927 So.2d 299.⁴

DISCUSSION

The primary legal issue in this case is the proper procedural mechanism by which a party may seek review of a Batson/Edmonson challenge in a civil case. The general concept of allocation of jurisdiction in civil actions in Louisiana is trial in the district court, with the constitutional right to appeal to the court of appeal, LA. CONST. ANN. art. V, § 10, and to seek discretionary review by the Supreme Court, LA. CONST. ANN. art. V, § 5. FRANK L. MARAIST AND HARRY T. LEMMON, 1 LOUISIANA CIVIL LAW TREATISE: CIVIL PROCEDURE, (West 1999). An appeal "is the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court reversed, modified, set aside, or revised by an appellate court." LA. CODE CIV. PROC. ANN. art. 2082. A party may appeal (1) from a final judgment in actions in which appeals are given by law; (2) an interlocutory judgment only when expressly provided by law; and (3) from a judgment reformed in accordance with an additur or remittitur. LA.CODE CIV. PROC. ANN. art. 2083 (amended in 2005). A final judgment in a civil case is generally appealable to the intermediate appellate court as a matter of right. There is no prohibition in the constitutional or statutory law...