Roach v. State through Department of Transportation and Development

• Decision Date: 22 September 2021
• Docket Number: 20-211, 20-212
• Citation: 329 So.3d 974
• Parties: Victoria ROACH v. The STATE of Louisiana THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT Michael Lee McVey and Norma Cheryl McVey v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

329 So.3d 974

Victoria ROACH

v.The STATE of Louisiana THROUGH the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Michael Lee McVey and Norma Cheryl McVey

v.Allstate Insurance Company, et al.

20-211, 20-212

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

September 22, 2021

Jeff Landry, Attorney General, Julius W. Grubbs, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, P. O. Box 11040, New Iberia, LA 70562-1040, (337) 365-5486, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: State of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

W. Thomas Barrett, III, 3401 Ryan Street, Suite 307, Lake Charles, LA 70605, (337) 474-7311, W. Thomas McCall, Jr., Jones Walker LLP, 445 North Boulevard, Suite 800, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, (225) 248-2154, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Victoria Roach

Barry A. Roach, Christopher S. LaCombe, Michael H. Schwartzberg, Larry A. Roach, Inc., 2917 Ryan Street, Lake Charles, LA 70601, (337) 433-8504, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Michael Lee McVey, Norma Cheryl McVey

Katherine Paine Martin, Gretchen Heider Mayard, Martin Mayard, L.L.C., P. O. Box 81338, Lafayette, LA 70598-1338, (337) 291-2440, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Court composed of Van H. Kyzar, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Charles G. Fitzgerald, Judges.

KYZAR, Judge.

The defendant, the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development, appeals from a jury verdict finding it twenty percent at fault for causing a single-vehicle accident which resulted in the death of one of the passengers. The jury found the Department of Transportation and Development at fault based on the placement of the intersectional traffic signal pole struck by the vehicle, which was being driven by an intoxicated driver. For the following reasons, we affirm as amended.

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD

This litigation arises from an accident which occurred at the intersection of Louisiana Highway 385 with Louisiana Highway 3092. At approximately 4:16 a.m. on October 19, 2013, Ryan A. Adams was driving southbound on Hwy 385 in a 2013 Honda Accord owned by Michael Lee McVey. Hannah Clare McVey, Mr. McVey's daughter, and Victoria Roach were passengers in the vehicle. After passing through the intersection, Mr. Adams’ vehicle drifted from the left outer lane into a rigid traffic signal pole, which was located approximately four feet from the shoulder and fourteen feet from the travel lane.¹ Both Mr. Adams and Ms. Roach were injured as a result of the accident; Hannah suffered fatal injuries. Subsequent to the accident, it was determined that Mr. Adams had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.13%.²

On October 17, 2014, Ms. Roach filed a petition for damages against the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), alleging that DOTD was strictly liable for the defective condition of the signal pole and that it had notice of the signal pole's defective condition but failed to correct it. That same day, Michael Lee McVey and Norma Cheryl McVey, Hannah's parents, filed a wrongful death action against Mr. Adams and his parents’ liability insurer, Allstate Insurance Company;³ State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the uninsured motorist (UM) insurer of the 2013 Honda Accord and the liability insurer of two other vehicles owned by the McVeys; and DOTD. Upon motion of DOTD, the two actions were consolidated under Ms. Roach's lawsuit.

After various procedural rulings, the consolidated lawsuits proceeded to a jury trial solely against DOTD. Following a six-day trial, the jury returned a verdict allocating eighty percent fault to Mr. Adams and twenty percent fault to DOTD. On the issue of damages, the jury awarded Ms. Roach general and special damages in the amount of $1,006,275.00. It further awarded the McVeys wrongful death damages in the amount of $10,020,000.00.

On June 27, 2019, Ms. Roach and the McVeys (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) filed a joint motion to tax costs, seeking to have DOTD assessed with all trial costs in the amount of $45,804.30 and $31,943.71, respectively. On July 23, 2019, DOTD filed its own motion to tax costs, seeking to have $26,023.15 in trial costs taxed as costs. It further sought to have Allstate, State Farm, Mr. Adams, Ms. Roach, and the McVeys assessed with a portion of the trial costs. Following a September 9, 2019 hearing on the motions, the trial court assessed DOTD with all trial and court costs.

On September 17, 2019, the trial court rendered a written judgment in conformity with the jury verdict. However, based on the percentage of fault allocated to DOTD, the trial court reduced Ms. Roach's damage award from $1,006,275.00 to $201,255.00 and the McVeys’ damage award from $10,020,000.00 to $2,004,000.00. Furthermore, in accordance with the $500,000.00 cap imposed for personal injury and wrongful death damage awards against the state by La.R.S. 13:5106,⁴ the McVeys’ damage award was further reduced to $504,000.00. The judgment assessed DOTD with Ms. Roach's and the McVeys’ trial expenses, in the amount of $45,354.30 and $32,174.71, respectively, and all court costs, in the amount of $9,260.00 and $2,960.90, respectively.

On October 17, 2019, DOTD moved for a new trial and for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and/or in the alternative, for remittitur. Following an October 28, 2019 hearing, the trial court orally denied both motions. At the close of the hearing, DOTD filed a motion to suspensively appeal the jury verdict, which the trial court granted. A written judgment denying DOTD's post-trial motions was rendered by the trial court on October 29, 2019.

On appeal, DOTD asserts ten assignments of error:

1. The trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding the fault of Victoria Roach.

2. The trial court improperly excluded evidence and testimony of the blood alcohol levels of Victoria Roach and Hannah McVey.

3. The trial court improperly granted a directed verdict finding no liability on the part of Hannah McVey.

4. The trial court improperly imposed a duty on DOTD to protect against harm caused by highly intoxicated motorists such as Ryan Adams.

5. The trial court improperly admitted into evidence certain documents referencing guidelines not in place at the time the Project was designed and/or built.

6. The jury improperly imposed a duty on DOTD to go above and beyond its mandate to follow the applicable editions of the MUTCD and AASHTO, and improperly found that an unreasonable risk of harm existed.

7. The jury improperly found DOTD liable despite a lack of evidence that DOTD knew or should have known of a defect posing an unreasonable risk of harm.

8. The jury improperly allocated 20% liability to DOTD.

9. The trial court improperly excluded certain evidence pertaining to Roach's future earning capacity which contributed to the jury improper award of Roach future earnings in the amount of $420,000.00.

10. The trial court erred in its assessment of expert fees and other court costs solely against DOTD.

This court, in Sonnier v. State, Department of Transportation & Development , 18-73, 18-74, 18-75, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/18), 249 So.3d 51, 54-55 (alteration in original), set out the applicable standard of review for this matter:

A trial court has great discretion in evidentiary matters, and its decisions regarding motions in limine are reviewed using the abuse of discretion standard. SeeScott v. Dauterive Hosp. Corp. , 02-1364 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/23/03), 851 So.2d 1152, writ denied , 03-2005 (La. 10/31/03), 857 So.2d 487 ; see alsoHeller v. Nobel Ins. Group , 00-261 (La. 2/2/00), 753 So.2d 841.

The long-standing standard for appellate review of jury determinations of fact was set forth in Mart v. Hill , 505 So.2d 1120 (La.1987). There, the court established a two-part test for the reversal of a factfinder's determinations: (1) The appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court, and (2) determine that the record establishes that the trial court's finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). Id.

"[T]he issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one." Stobart v. State through DOTD , 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993). Additionally, "the reviewing court must always keep in mind that ‘if the trial court or jury's findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may not reverse, even if convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.’ " Id. at 882-83 (quoting Housley v. Cerise , 579 So.2d 973, 976 (La.1991) ).

DOTD alleges the trial court committed numerous legal errors through either the exclusion or admission of evidence into the record. Because the finding of such an error could result in a de novo review if the error interdicted the jury's fact-finding process, we address these assignments of error first. Wright v. Bennett , 04-1944 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/28/05), 924 So.2d 178.

Assignments of Error Numbers One and Two

In its first two assignments of error, DOTD argues the trial court improperly excluded evidence pertaining to Ms. Roach's fault and evidence and testimony pertaining to the BAC of both Ms. Roach and Hannah. Prior to trial, Ms. Roach and the McVeys each filed a motion in limine to exclude this evidence from being introduced during the trial, which the trial court granted. In particular, Ms. Roach sought to exclude evidence of her fault and her BAC, and the McVeys sought to exclude evidence of Hannah's BAC. The trial court granted both motions.

Ms. Roach's Fault/BAC

DOTD argues that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Ms. Roach's comparative fault because it properly pled her fault as an affirmative defense in its answers. We disagree.

In its answer to both Ms. Roach's and the McVeys’ petition, DOTD alleged that Mr. Adams was solely at fault in causing the...