Schexnayder v. Bridges
| Decision Date | 26 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 2015 CA 0786,2015 CA 0787.,s. 2015 CA 0786 |
| Citation | 190 So.3d 764 |
| Parties | Paul and Sybil SCHEXNAYDER v. Harry BRIDGES, N & G Trucking Inc., Hinson Logging, Inc., State National Insurance Company, Inc., and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Mary Alford v. State National Life Insurance Company, Inc., Harry Bridges And N & G Trucking, Inc. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Franklin D. Beahm, New Orleans, LA, and Howard B. Kaplan, Metairie, LA, for Defendants–Appellants, Harry Bridges, N & G Trucking, Inc., Hinson Logging, Inc. and State National Insurance Company, Inc.
Jeffery F. Speer, Lafayette, LA, Richard P. Voorhies, III, James F. Flinn, New Orleans, LA, Antonio Clayton, Michael P. Fruge, Port Allen, LA, for Plaintiffs–Appellees, Paul and Sybil Schexnayder.
Before PETTIGREW, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CRAIN, JJ.
HIGGINBOTHAM
, J.
In this consolidated action concerning personal injuries that arose out of a three-vehicle collision, the defendants appeal a final judgment rendered in accordance with a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal challenges the percentages of fault allocated by the jury, two evidentiary rulings made by the trial court, and two aspects of the damages awarded by the jury.
The motor vehicle accident at issue occurred early in the morning, while still dark, on March 17, 2011, at approximately 6:00 a.m., on U.S. Highway 190 East (Hwy.190) near Gremillion Road in West Baton Rouge Parish. Harry Bridges, was driving an eighteen-wheeler tractor-trailer logging truck that was owned by his employer, N & G Trucking, Inc., and he was hauling a full load of timber logs for Hinson Logging, Inc. The accident occurred after Mr. Bridges exited the parking lot of the Cajun Circus truck stop where the truck had been parked overnight. Mr. Bridges planned to head east on Hwy. 190 and in order to do so, he pulled across the two westbound lanes of Hwy. 190 after checking for traffic coming from both directions and seeing that “nothing [was] coming.” Ignoring a “Do Not Enter” sign and lights “way down the road” in the eastbound lanes, Mr. Bridges made an illegal left-hand turn across a gravel crossover area in the median to get to the eastbound left-hand lane of Hwy. 190.
At the same time, two vehicles were traveling on the eastbound side of Hwy. 190, approaching the same crossover area. Each vehicle was in the left-hand lane with cruise controls set at roughly 60–65 miles per hour in the 65 mile per hour speed zone. There were approximately two-to-three car lengths between the first vehicle, driven by Mary Alford, and the second vehicle, driven by Paul Schexnayder. When Mr. Schexnayder saw the logging truck entering the eastbound lane, he slammed on his brakes and veered into the right lane. At the same time that Mr. Schexnayder changed lanes, Ms. Alford's vehicle impacted the right rear wheel on the tractor portion of the eighteen-wheeler truck. After hitting the truck, Ms. Alford lost control of her vehicle, which began to spin directly into the path of Mr. Schexnayder's vehicle in the right eastbound lane. The Schexnayder and Alford vehicles collided and slid off of the paved roadway onto the grassy south shoulder area of Hwy. 190, approximately 230 feet past the crossover. Both Mr. Schexnayder and Ms. Alford were injured as a result of the collision. Mr. Bridges was cited for driving the wrong way to the crossover area; he pled guilty and paid a fine.
Subsequently, Mr. Schexnayder and his wife, Sybil Schexnayder, filed suit against Mr. Bridges, his employer, N & G Trucking, Inc., Hinson Logging, Inc., and their insurer, State National Insurance Company, Inc., (collectively referred to as “the defendants”).1 The Schexnayders alleged that Mr. Bridges negligently caused the accident by failing to yield and/or making an illegal left turn into the path of an oncoming vehicle, among other things. Mr. Schexnayder alleged that he sustained neck and back injuries in the accident. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Schexnayder underwent two back surgeries, and he alleges he will most likely need a third back surgery in his future. Ms. Schexnayder alleged that she had suffered a loss of consortium as a result of her husband's injuries.
Ms. Alford also filed suit against the defendants in a separate action, alleging that she had sustained injuries in the accident due to Mr. Bridges' and N & G Trucking's negligence. The defendants answered both lawsuits, denying any negligence and specifically alleging that Ms. Alford and Mr. Schexnayder were at fault for the accident because of their failure to be attentive so as to avoid the accident. The two lawsuits were consolidated by the trial court; however, due to a settlement between Ms. Alford and the defendants, by the time the matter proceeded to a jury trial, the only remaining claims were those of Mr. Schexnayder against the defendants.2
Following a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict, assessing 65% fault for the accident to Mr. Bridges and 35% fault to Ms. Alford. The jury also rendered the following damage award in favor of Mr. Schexnayder and against the defendants:
| Past Medical Expenses | $ 222,639.92 |
| Future Medical Expenses | $ 247,000.00 |
| Past Lost Wages/Loss of Earning Capacity | $ 62,300.00 |
| Future Lost Wages/Loss of Earning Capacity | $ 350,000.00 |
| Past Physical Pain and Suffering | $ 100,000.00 |
| Future Physical Pain and Suffering | $ 100,000.00 |
| Past Mental Anguish | $ 50,000.00 |
| Future Mental Anguish | $ 50,000.00 |
| Past Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $ 100,000.00 |
| Future Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $ 200,000.00 |
| Total | $1,481,939.92 |
The trial court signed a final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict on July 21, 2014. The defendants filed a motion for new trial, which was subsequently denied by the trial court on November 10, 2014. The defendants then filed a motion for suspensive appeal, which was granted on November 17, 2014. In their appeal, the defendants assign the following errors: (1) the trial court erred in not allowing the defendants to attack the credibility of Dr. Mark McDonnell; (2) the jury erred in awarding $247,000.00 in future medical expenses; (3) the trial court erred in allowing Neil Guidry to be called as a rebuttal witness; (4) the jury erred in awarding $350,000.00 in future lost wages; and (5) the jury erred in finding Mr. Bridges 65% at fault.
In their first assignment of error, the defendants contend that they should have been afforded an opportunity to attack the credibility of Mr. Schexnayder's treating orthopedic spine surgeon, Dr. Mark F. McDonnell, with alleged impeachment evidence consisting of complaints filed against Dr. McDonnell in Texas, almost ten years earlier.3 Dr. McDonnell was the only physician to testify at trial regarding the necessity of Mr. Schexnayder's past and future back surgeries.4 Prior to trial, Mr. Schexnayder filed a motion in limine requesting an order from the trial court that prohibited the defendants from introducing any evidence, or in any way disclosing to the jury, any alleged facts or circumstances surrounding the disposition of administrative proceedings that occurred in 2005–2006 between the Texas Board of Medical Examiners and Dr. McDonnell, which ultimately led Dr. McDonnell to allow his Texas medical license to expire. The defendants opposed the motion, maintaining the information was critical to assessing Dr. McDonnell's credibility.
The motion was argued at trial, out of the presence of the jury, after which the trial court granted the motion, thereby excluding any evidence or reference to the Texas proceedings as irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The trial court, however, did not prohibit the defendants from asking Dr. McDonnell if he still had a license in Texas and whether he was eligible to reapply for the license. The defendants argue on appeal that the trial court erred in excluding the evidence of the Texas administrative proceedings, which they maintain is critical information that the jury should have heard in order to properly assess Dr. McDonnell's credibility. The defendants request that this court conduct a de novo review based upon the trial court's alleged error, or alternatively, remand for a new trial since the defendants were prevented from attacking the credibility of Dr. McDonnell.
Initially, we note that the trial court has great discretion when considering evidentiary matters such as motions in limine . Heller v. Nobel Insurance Group, 2000–0261 (La.2/2/00), 753 So.2d 841, 841
; Maldonado v. Kiewit Louisiana Co., 2012–1868 (La.App. 1st Cir.5/30/14), 152 So.3d 909, 922, writ denied, 2014–2246 (La.1/16/15), 157 So.3d 1129. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible. See La.Code Evid. art. 402. Whether evidence is relevant is within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Hunter v. State ex rel. LSU Medical School, 2005–0311 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/29/06), 934 So.2d 760, 763, writ denied, 2006–0937 (La.11/3/06), 940 So.2d 653. Indeed, a trial court has much discretion to regulate the evidence a jury hears. Beaucoudray v. Walsh, 2007–0818 (La.App. 4th Cir.3/12/09), 9 So.3d 916, 928, writ denied, 2009–0832 (La.5/29/09), 9 So.3d 168. Moreover, a trial court should consider the improper inferences a jury might make from evidence of a physician's personal history and of a medical licensing board's reports and/or investigations when balancing the probative value of evidence with the danger of its unfair prejudice. Id., 9 So.3d at 929.
We also observe that relevant evidence may be excluded if, among other things, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. La.Code Evid. art. 403
. See also La.Code Evid. art. 607(D)(2). The party alleging prejudice by the evidentiary ruling of the trial court bears the burden of so proving. Mapp...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mouton v. United States, CASE NO. 6:18-CV-00484
-
M&R Drywall, Inc. v. Mapp Constr., LLC
...right was not prejudiced or affected by the evidentiary ruling, a reversal is not warranted." Schexnayder v. Bridges, 15-0786, 15-0787 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/26/16), 190 So.3d 764, 770-71. A reviewing court must determine whether the allegedly erroneous evidentiary ruling, when compared to the ......
-
Bickham v. Toon
...party at fault and the extent of the causal relationship between the conduct and thedamages claimed. Schexnayder v. Bridges, 2015-0786 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/26/16), 190 So.3d 764, 773. At trial, the defendants would have the burden of proving that Jonathan "Clint" Bickham was negligent in orde......
-
Lawrence v. Kalin Glen Mckenzie, Terri Mckenzie, Glen Mckenzie, Progressive Gulf Ins. Co.
...App. 1st Cir. 3/28/07), 960 So. 2d 973, 977-978, writ denied, 2007-1227 (La. 9/14/07), 963 So. 2d 1005; Schexnayder v. Bridges, 2015-0786 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/26/16), 190 So. 3d 764, 773. The manifest error standard demands great deference to the fact finder's conclusions; for only the fact......