Stephenson v. Bryce W. Hotard Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 May 2019
• Docket Number: NO. 2019-CC-0478,2019-CC-0478
• Citation: 271 So.3d 190
• Parties: Obadiah STEPHENSON, Jr. v. BRYCE W. HOTARD SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., and Travelers Property and Casualty Company of America
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

271 So.3d 190

Obadiah STEPHENSON, Jr.
v.
BRYCE W. HOTARD SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., and Travelers Property and Casualty Company of America

NO. 2019-CC-0478

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

PER CURIAM

271 So.3d 192

Relators, Bryce W. Hotard Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., and Travelers Property and Casualty Company of America, filed a motion for partial summary judgment requesting dismissal of plaintiff's punitive damage claims under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.4. A divided five-judge panel of the court of appeal denied writs. Relators now seek relief in this court.

The general public policy in Louisiana is against punitive damages. Ross v. Conoco, Inc. , 02-0299 (La. 10/15/02), 828 So.2d 546, 555. Even when a statute does authorize the imposition of punitive damages, it is strictly construed. Chauvin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 2014-0808 (La. 12/9/14), 158 So.3d 761, 768.

In order to establish a claim for exemplary damages under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.4, party must establish the following elements: (1) that the defendant was intoxicated or had consumed a sufficient quantity of intoxicants to make him lose normal control of his mental and physical faculties; (2) that the intoxication was a cause-in-fact of the resulting injuries; and (3) that the injuries were caused by the defendant's wanton or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others. Lyons v. Progressive Ins. Co. , 03-2163 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/21/04), 881 So.2d 124, writ denied , 04-2164 (La. 11/19/04), 888 So.2d 209.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that plaintiff is unable to establish any direct evidence that the other driver, Mr. Hotard, was intoxicated. Rather, plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence, citing his own testimony that Mr. Hotard was nervous, sweaty and had "droopy" eyes. However, plaintiff also testified that Mr. Hotard did not smell of alcohol nor was his speech impaired. He further admitted he did not "even want to assume" that Mr. Hotard was intoxicated.

If circumstantial evidence is relied...