Lodrigue v. Houma-Terrebonne Airport Com'n

• Decision Date: 30 May 1984
• Docket Number: HOUMA-TERREBONNE,No. 83,83
• Citation: 450 So.2d 1004
• Parties: Alvin LODRIGUE and Mary Lodrigue v.AIRPORT COMMISSION. CA 0647.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1004

450 So.2d 1004

Alvin LODRIGUE and Mary Lodrigue v. HOUMA-TERREBONNE AIRPORT COMMISSION.

No. 83 CA 0647.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana First Circuit.

May 30, 1984.

Edward J. Milligan, Jr., Lafayette, for plaintiffs and appellants, Alvin and Mary Lodrigue.

Charles Hanemann, Houma, for defendant and appellee Houma-Terrebonne Airport Com'n.

Huntington B. Downer, Houma, for defendant and appellee, Police Jury.

Leon A. Aucoin, Metairie, for defendant and appellee, City of Houma.

Craig W. Marks, Lafayette, for defendant and appellee Intervenor, Home Insurance Co.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and ALFORD, JJ.

ALFORD, Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants, Alvin and Mary Lodrigue, appeal from a judgment denying their claims for damages resulting from a one car accident in which Mrs. Lodrigue was involved on June 3, 1980, in Terrebonne Parish. Mr. and Mrs. Lodrigue filed suit against the Houma-Terrebonne Airport Commission and its insurer, United States Aircraft Insurance Group, the Terrebonne Parish Police Jury and the City of Houma, alleging negligence and strict liability for the condition of the road which plaintiffs allege caused the accident.

At the conclusion of plaintiffs' case, a directed verdict was rendered in favor of the Terrebonne Parish Police Jury dismissing it from the suit. Plaintiffs have not assigned this ruling as an assignment of error, and thus, it is not before us in this appeal.

In his written reasons for judgment, the trial judge noted that the lack of clear evidence of the alleged rut, the testimony of the witnesses and the other evidence presented, led him to the conclusion that the accident was caused by excessive speed on the part of Mrs. Lodrigue. The trial judge went on to find Mrs. Lodrigue guilty of contributory negligence and victim fault such as to bar recovery. While we agree with the trial court's decision, we are of the opinion that the court need not have reached the issues of contributory negligence and victim fault.

The accident in question occurred on Clendening Road, approximately two-tenths of a mile south of where it intersects with Moffitt Road, in Terrebonne Parish. It was established at trial that Clendening Road is a two-way, concrete, undivided highway and that the accident occurred on a clear day during daylight hours. Mrs. Lodrigue testified that she was proceeding down Clendening Road in the direction of Houma, Louisiana, at approximately 25 to 30 miles per hour as she entered a curve in the road. She further testified that as she came out of the curve she found it necessary to steer her vehicle more towards the centerline of the road. As she attempted to execute this maneuver, the right rear wheel of her vehicle left the concrete road surface falling into a six to eight inch rut in the shoulder of the road causing her to lose control of the vehicle. Mrs. Lodrigue's vehicle was propelled across Clendening Road, eventually coming to rest in a ditch.

In an attempt to prove the existence of the alleged rut, plaintiffs' introduced several photographs purporting to show the condition of the road shoulder the day after the accident. The photographs were taken by Mr. Lodrigue and Mrs. Lodrigue's sister the day after the accident. It was brought out in testimony that Mrs. Lodrigue did not accompany her husband and sister to the site. In contrast to this evidence was the testimony of the investigating officer, Mr. Brian Mathies, who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident. Mr. Mathies testified that upon interviewing Mrs. Lodrigue, she told him that as she came out of the curve her wheel went off the road onto the shoulder at which time she jerked her steering wheel to get back on the road, went across the highway and landed in the ditch. Mr. Mathies further testified that he returned to the scene to investigate the condition of the shoulder but found no ruts where Mrs. Lodrigue said she left the road. He stated that there were ruts further into the curve but where plaintiff left the road there was only a one inch variation between the road and the shoulder.

As noted above, plaintiff testified that she was traveling approximately 25 to 30 miles per hour as she entered the curve. Defendants produced three witnesses to dispute this allegation. These witnesses, all of whom were in the same vehicle, were stopped at the intersection of Moffit and Clendening Roads as Mrs. Lodrigue passed through the intersection. All three witnesses testified that the Lodrigue...