Hansen v. Thorpe

• Decision Date: 23 October 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-6203 SECTION "L" (3)
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER HANSEN v. ROGER THORPE
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

CHRISTOPHER HANSEN v. ROGER THORPE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-6203 SECTION "L" (3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

October 23, 2020

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This case arises from a confrontation that occurred between PlaintiffChristopher Hansen and DefendantRoger Thorpe on June 23, 2017.On that date at about 2:00 P.M. in the afternoon, the Plaintiff and the Defendant got into a road rage incident while traveling Eastbound on I-10 in New Orleans East.In reaction to the road rage incident, Defendant used his personal firearm to shoot at the Plaintiff's vehicle, shattering his rear window and striking the headrest.Plaintiff claims that this incident and its immediate aftermath caused him to sustain physical and emotional pain and suffering requiring continuing medical treatment.Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 22, 2018 seeking compensatory damages including past present and future physical pain, emotional distress, and humiliation and past present and future medical expenses.R. Doc. 1at 6.Shortly thereafter, the Court implemented a stay pending the resolution of Defendant's related criminal proceedings.R. Docs. 15, 23.The stay was lifted on January 30, 2020, after the conclusion of the Defendant's criminal proceedings.R. Doc. 25.On March 20, 2020, Defendant filed an answer denying liability and claiming that the Plaintiff was the aggressor in the incident and that he, the Defendant, was in fear of his and his passengers' welfare and that he acted reasonably under the circumstances.R. Doc. 40.

This matter came before the Court, virtually without a jury on September 28, 2020.The Court has carefully considered the testimony of all witnesses, the exhibits entered into evidence during the trial, and the record.Pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

To the extent that any findings of fact may be construed as conclusions of law, the Court adopts them as such.To the extent that any conclusions of law constitute findings of fact, the Court adopts them as such.

I.FINDINGS OF FACT

1.PlaintiffChristopher Hansen is an adult male resident and citizen of the City of Gulfport, Harrison County, State of Mississippi.R. Doc. 68 ¶ 3.

2.DefendantRoger Thorpe is an adult male resident and citizen of the City of New Orleans.Id.

3.At the time of the incident, Plaintiff and Defendant were traveling East on Interstate 10 in New Orleans East. Defendant was driving a 2015 Black Mercedes Sedan.In his car were his wife and his mother.Plaintiff was driving a 2014 General Motors Sierra 4 door pickup truck.It was around 2:15 P.M.It was daylight, and the weather was clear.Traffic was heavy.

4.Defendant was traveling east in the left lane going about 55 miles per hour (MPH).The speed limit on this section is 65 MPH.Plaintiff was also traveling in the left lane going between 65 and 70 MPH.There was one car between the Plaintiff and Defendant.That car pulled into the middle lane and proceeded to pass the Defendant.The Plaintiff closed the gap between his vehicle and the Defendant's vehicle and gotclose to Defendant's rear bumper.As the parties continued in this manner, the credible evidence supports the conclusion that the Plaintiff proceeded to speed up and get very close to the rear of Defendant's vehicle, then reduce his speed to let the vehicles separate, only to speed up again and get even closer to the rear of Defendant's car the next time.The vehicles proceeded in this fashion for a brief period of time, after which the Plaintiff swerved into the middle lane and passed Defendant's car.

5.At this point there is an irreconcilable difference in the testimony.The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff was driving wildly, repeatedly veering toward Defendant's car in an attempt to cause Defendant to swerve left and hit the median's retaining wall.The Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that he simply pulled around Defendant's vehicle to get back in the left lane in front of Defendant's car to continue on his way.There is also a dispute over whether the Plaintiff activated his brakes when he got in front of the Defendant's vehicle to cause more grief to the Defendant.

6.In any event, after Plaintiff moved in front of the Defendant's car, the Defendant got into the middle lane and pulled alongside of the Plaintiff's truck and proceeded to shout obscenities at him complaining about his driving practices.The Defendant"gave him the middle finger" which was promptly returned by the Plaintiff.At this point, the Defendant pulled his car behind the Plaintiff's truck, took out a .357 Magnum pistol (one of the most powerful pistols made), and proceeded to shoot two rounds into Plaintiff's truck, shattering his rear windshield and lodging in the headrest.R. Doc64-1 at ¶¶ 15, 16; Exhibit 14.

7.The Defendant then got into the middle lane, sped ahead, and exited the Interstate at a nearby exit.The Plaintiff followed the Defendant in an attempt to get his license platenumber to report it to the police.He also called 911 as he followed the Defendant's car.The Defendant pulled his car into a driveway parking area, and the Plaintiff pulled behind him while on the phone with 911.The Defendant got out of his car and walked toward Plaintiff's truck with his gun in his hand.He told Plaintiff to give him his phone, which Plaintiff dropped.The Defendant picked up the phone and told the Plaintiff if he continued to follow him, he would kill him.The Defendant returned to his car and drove off.

8.The Plaintiff then drove to a nearby shop and called 911 again.The New Orleans Police Department took him to the Defendant's apartment where he identified the Defendant as the person who fired the shots.The Defendant was arrested.Eventually, he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor of aggravated assault.

9.Following the incident, Plaintiff was distraught, anxious, and irritated.Exhibit 1at 17, 19.He had problems sleeping, eating and focusing on daily activities.Id.His personality changed drastically, and he became emotionally withdrawn.Direct Examination of Lynne Hansen, September 28, 2020.

10.Two weeks after the incident, Plaintiff sought treatment with Katryna Twilbeck, LPC, who diagnosed him with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the trauma from the shooting perpetrated by the Defendant.Exhibit 1at 2-3.Plaintiff saw Ms. Twilbeck for five therapy sessions in 2017.¹Ms. Twilbeck diagnosed Plaintiff with post-traumatic stress disorder from the shooting based on the American Psychiatric Association(APA) criterion from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM-5).Id. at 2-3.The medical records relate his mental condition to theincident: Plaintiff had "direct exposure" to a traumatic event in the form of threatened death or serious injury; Plaintiff"persistently re-experiences" the traumatic event through "unwanted, upsetting memories, nightmares, flashbacks, and emotional distress and physical reactivity after exposure to traumatic reminders"; Plaintiff avoids trauma-related stimuli due to "trauma-related thoughts or feelings or trauma-related reminders"; Plaintiff's "overly negative thoughts and assumptions about himself of the world, negative affect, [and] difficulty experiencing positive affect""began or worsened after the trauma"; Plaintiff's "irritability or aggression, risky or destructive behavior, difficulty concentrating, and difficulty sleeping""began or worsened after the trauma."Id.Further, the medical records indicate that these symptoms persisted, created distress or functional impairment, and were not due to medication, substance use, or other illness.Id. at 3.For a period of time, Plaintiff stopped attending these therapy sessions.Several months later, he told a physiatrist that the reason that he quit therapy was because he"felt that he was better", but "meanwhile his marriage was going downhill."Id. at 150.

11.At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was married.Exhibit 3.His wife's name is Lynette Joy Hansen("Ms. Hansen").Id. at 1.Ms. Hansen testified at trial that prior to the road rage incident, the couple had a good marriage and that she trusted the Plaintiff completely.Direct Examination of Lynette Hansen, September 28, 2020.She then explained that the couple's relationship deteriorated very quickly after the incident.Id.Ms. Hansen described how the Plaintiff, once easy-going and spontaneous, dramatically changed after the incident, becoming emotionally withdrawn, fearful, and irritated.Id.On December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff and his wife separated after aheated argument.Eventually, the couple divorced on April 4, 2018.Exhibit 3.

12.After experiencing suicidal thoughts, Plaintiff sought emergency medical treatment at the Biloxi Veterans Administration ("VA") Medical Center on December 28, 2017.Exhibit 2at 198.The nursing mental health intake states that Plaintiff tearfully requested help for "fleeting suicidal thoughts over the Christmas holidays."Id at 197.Plaintiff testified at trial that on Christmas night, he contemplated suicide in his truck with a gun in his glove compartment but did not go through with it out of concern for the harmful effects it would have on his adoptive parents.Direct Examination of Christopher Hansen, September 28, 2020.It is undisputed that Plaintiff and his spouse had separated the night prior, and the Plaintiff was recently laid off from his construction job.Exhibit 2at 197, 198.Nevertheless, Plaintiff claimed that his marital problems arose from "his PTSD from a 'road rage' incident," which he described in detail to the treating nurse.Id. at 198.A few days later on December 31, 2017, Plaintiff went to the VA Medical Center emergency room again for an intense ache in his chest.Id. at 190.The treating physician determined that Plaintiff had experienced a panic

...