Andrews v. Dufour
| Citation | 882 So.2d 15 |
| Decision Date | 02 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2003-CA-0736.,No. 2003-CA-1848.,2003-CA-0736.,2003-CA-1848. |
| Parties | Vana ANDREWS v. Margaret DUFOUR, The Government Employees Insurance Company and Ford Motor Company. Vana Andrews v. Margaret Dufour, The Government Employees Insurance Company and Ford Motor Company. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Louisiana |
Appeal from the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, No. 92-13762, Louis A. Dirosa, Judge Pro Tempore.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Darleen M. Jacobs, Al Ambrose Sarrat, Jacobs & Sarrat, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Terrill W. Boykin, Kriste L. Talton, Rodney, Bordenave, Boykin & Ehret, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, Ford Motor Company.
Martin E. Golden, Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blitzer, Baton Rouge, LA, for Intervenor/ Appellee, United Healthcare Corporation.
(Court composed of Judge MAX N. TOBIAS JR., Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO JR., and MOON LANDRIEU, Judge Pro Tempore).
In this action involving an automobile accident, the plaintiff, Vana Andrews, and one of the defendants, Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), appeal a judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV"). The intervenor, United Healthcare Corporation ("United Healthcare"), answered the appeal. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and amend.
On the night of September 9, 1991 at approximately 8:15 p.m., Margaret Dufour was driving her 1985 Oldsmobile Cutlass in the far left lane of the three-lane Interstate 10 westbound in New Orleans. She testified that she was traveling at approximately 55 miles per hour when she suddenly observed a car stopped in the center of the lane in which she was traveling with no lights on. She immediately applied her brakes but hit the rear of the car, a 1976 two-door Ford Granada, occupied by plaintiff, Vana Andrews, and Haywood Acker.
Although their names were not mentioned in the police report, two witnesses, John Griffin and Emily Griffin, testified that they observed the accident. Mr. Griffin was driving in the far right westbound lane about four or five car lengths behind Ms. Dufour. Mr. Griffin estimated that he was driving 72-75 miles per hour and that Ms. Dufour was moving at about the same speed. He suddenly noticed a vehicle stopped with no lights in the far left lane of the roadway about halfway up the slope of an overpass. He saw the brake lights of Ms. Dufour's vehicle light immediately before Ms. Dufour's car struck the rear of the stopped car. Mr. Griffin testified that he swerved into the emergency lane on the right-hand side of the interstate and barely missed hitting Ms. Andrews' Granada as it moved across the highway. Mr. Griffin then stopped his car at the top of the overpass. He returned to the accident scene on foot, left his name and telephone number with a bystander, and departed.
Ms. Griffin testified that at the time of the accident, she was Mr. Griffin's fiancee and was a passenger in Mr. Griffin's vehicle. She testified that Ms. Dufour's vehicle was traveling a short distance in front of them in the far left-hand lane at approximately 70 to 75 miles per hour, the same speed that Mr. Griffin's vehicle was traveling. Ms. Griffin said that she was alarmed to see a car stopped in front of Ms. Dufour's vehicle with no lights on. She said that the driver of the moving car (Ms. Dufour's car) did not see the stopped vehicle. Ms. Griffin saw the brake lights of Ms. Dufour's vehicle come on just before it ran into the rear of the stopped car. The Griffins testified that the streetlight directly above the stopped car was not working. (The police report did not reflect that the streetlight was not lit.)
Ms. Andrews maintains that she was not stopped at the time of the accident. Ford argues that the record shows that she could not remember whether her car was stopped or was moving at the time of the accident, for Ms. Andrews could not remember what happened after passing an earlier interstate exit at Bullard Road. Ms. Andrews was asked if she recalled feeling an impact, to which she replied, "No." Ms. Andrews testified that her headlights were on when she got on the interstate, but she could not remember what happened at the time of the collision.
Mr. Acker (Ms. Andrews' boyfriend at the time and now her ex-husband) testified that Ms. Andrews' vehicle was not stopped. Mr. Acker testified that he was sitting in the passenger seat with his head back, facing the ceiling with his eyes closed. He testified that he was not asleep and could tell that the vehicle was still moving when it was hit from behind. Contrary to every other witness' testimony that Ms. Andrews' car was in the far left-hand lane, he described the Andrews' vehicle as being in the right-hand lane. (Ms. Andrews testified in her deposition that she thought that Mr. Acker was sleeping.) After the accident, Mr. Acker told the investigating police officer that he did not know what happened. Ford points out that in his deposition, Mr. Acker admitted that he was drunk. Ms. Andrews said that he appeared to be drunk, and the police officer described Mr. Acker as being intoxicated.
Ms. Dufour's Oldsmobile slammed into the rear of the Granada, under riding the bumper for nearly three and one-half feet. The impact caused heavy damage to the Granada. The tip of the Oldsmobile's frame rail rammed about two feet beneath the rear bumper, into the Granada's gas tank, where it lifted it upwards and tore a hole in the tank. The collision moved the Granada 25 to 35 feet from its position into the far right-hand lane.
Gasoline, which leaked from the Granada's fuel tank, ignited. Mr. Acker pulled Ms. Andrews out of the vehicle on the driver's side. Ms. Andrews sustained burns over 35 percent of her body. She was taken to Methodist Hospital where she was treated in the emergency room. She was transferred to Tulane Medical Center the next morning. She remained hospitalized at Tulane for 29 days and did not work for the next six months. She then returned to work at the Sewerage and Water Board.
Ms. Andrews filed suit against Ford, Ms. Dufour and Ms. Dufour's insurer, GEICO General Insurance Company ("GEICO"), as defendants, alleging negligence by Ms. Dufour, and improper design giving rise to strict liability against Ford. Ford answered the petition, alleging that the accident and Ms. Andrews' resulting injuries were caused by Ms. Dufour's comparative negligence and comparative negligence, assumption of the risk, and failure to mitigate damages on the part of Ms. Andrews.
GEICO filed its answer and third-party demand, naming Mr. Acker and his insurer's successor, Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association ("LIGA") as third party defendants. GEICO alleged that the accident was caused solely or in part by Mr. Acker's negligent operation of a vehicle while under the influence of illegal substances and riding in a vehicle with a person who was under the influence of illegal substances. GEICO also claimed subrogation rights for payments made to Ms. Dufour under her GEICO insurance policy.
United Healthcare later intervened to recover health benefits of $175,249.86 that it paid to Ms. Andrews.
Following trial on the merits, the jury awarded Ms. Andrews $12,000,000.00. The jury apportioned the following percentages of fault:
Ms. Andrews 0%
Ms. Dufour 20%
Ford 80%
The trial court judgment rendered in accord with the jury's verdict also awarded United Healthcare $175,249.86 for the health benefits it paid to Ms. Andrews.
Ms. Dufour and GEICO filed a motion to amend the judgment and/or for new trial and Ford moved for a JNOV and a new trial. Following hearings on the motions, the trial judge rendered a JNOV and apportioned fault as follows:
Ms. Andrews 50%
Ms. Dufour 25%
Ford 25%
The trial court reduced the jury's damage award from $12,000,000.00 to $4,000,000.00, together with judicial interest and court costs. The judgment limited GEICO's liability to the face amount of the insurance policy it issued to Ms. Dufour and confirmed the earlier award of $175,249.86 to United Healthcare on its intervention.
Ford and Ms. Andrews appealed and United Healthcare answered Ford's appeal.
On appeal, Ms. Andrews contends that the trial court erred in: (1) misinterpreting this court's previous rulings and granting Ford's motion for JNOV; (2) assigning comparative fault to her; (3) reducing the jury's allocation of fault to Ford; (4) excluding portions of Dr. Leslie Ball's exhibits and deposition testimony; and (5) reducing the jury's damage award.
On appeal, Ford argues that the trial court erred in: (1) finding that the fuel system of the 1976 Ford Granada was defective in its design; (2) permitting the plaintiff's experts, Dr. Ball and Mr. Arndt, to give opinion testimony on the allegedly defective design; and (3) failing to find that the jury deliberations were tainted.
A motion for a JNOV may be granted on the issue of liability or on the issue of damages or on both issues. La.C.C.P. art. 1811(F). As the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000-0445, pp. 4-5 (La.11/28/00), 774 So.2d 84, 89:
A JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The motion should be granted only when the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach different conclusions, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. If there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. In making this determination, the court should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winston v. Millaud
......Thus, in such cases, appellate review of questions of law is simply whether the trial court was legally correct or legally incorrect. Andrews v. Dufour, 2003-0736 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/2/04), 882 So.2d 15, 21; See also, O'Niell v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 558 So.2d 1235, 1238 (La.App. 1 ......
-
Raines v. Columbia Lakeland Medical Center
...... vast discretion that a finder of fact is granted in matters of general damages; the same applies to a general damage award of a trial judge." Andrews v. Dufour, 2003-0736 (La. 4 Cir. 6/2/04), 882 So.2d 15. This Court has further stated that "[i]n determining damages for a lost chance of survival, ......
-
Beane v. Util. Trailer Mfg. Co.
...... at *5. In another opinion cited by UTM, Andrews v. Dufour, 2003–0736 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/2/04), 882 So.2d 15, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit addressed whether a plaintiff had provided sufficient ......
-
Samuels v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
......1912, 1914-15, and, appellate review of questions of law is limited to determining whether the trial court was legally correct or incorrect. Andrews v. Dufour, 2003-0736 (La.App. 4 Cir.6/2/04), 882 So.2d 15. Where the facts are not in dispute, the reviewing court must consider whether the trial ......
-
Private sector business records
...lawsuit. A memo is normally hearsay because it is normally offered to prove the truth of statements made out of court. Andrews v. Dufour , 882 So.2d 15 (La. App. 4th Cir. June 2, 2004). In a products liability lawsuit against an automobile manufacturer, exhibits that consisted of notes that......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...lawsuit. A memo is normally hearsay because it is normally offered to prove the truth of statements made out of court. Andrews v. Dufour , 882 So.2d 15 (La. App. 4th Cir. June 2, 2004). In a products liability lawsuit against an automobile manufacturer, exhibits that consisted of notes that......
-
Legal documents
...then the court assumes the expert is not authorized to reflect the position of the party that retained him or her. 40 Andrews v. Dufour, 882 So.2d 15 (La. App. 4 Cir. June 2, 2004). In a products liability lawsuit against an automobile manufacturer, exhibits that consisted of notes that an ......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...lawsuit. A memo is normally hearsay because it is normally offered to prove the truth of statements made out of court. Andrews v. Dufour , 882 So.2d 15 (La. App. 4th Cir. June 2, 2004). In a products liability lawsuit against an automobile manufacturer, exhibits that consisted of notes that......