Stobart v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Development

• Citation: 617 So.2d 880
• Decision Date: 12 April 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-C-1328,92-C-1328
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: Shirley STOBART & Edward Stobart, Applicants, v. STATE of Louisiana, Through DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.

Page 880

617 So.2d 880

Shirley STOBART & Edward Stobart, Applicants, v. STATE of Louisiana, Through DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.

No. 92-C-1328.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 12, 1993.

James S. Gates, Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett, Opelousas, for applicant.

Richard P. Ieyoub, Atty. Gen., W. Steven Mannear, Poynter, Mannear & Speer, Baton Rouge, for respondent.

CALOGERO, Chief Justice. ^*

We granted certiorari on plaintiffs' application to decide whether the Court of Appeal applied properly the correct review standard when it found that the trial court was clearly wrong in its conclusion that the roadway contained a defect and that the DOTD had actual or constructive notice of the defect. The court of appeal concluded that the trial court's findings were manifestly erroneous and reversed the trial court's decision, 601 So.2d 33. For the following reasons, we conclude that the court of appeal misapplied the manifest error-clearly wrong standard. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeal's decision and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.

This case arises out of an one-vehicle accident which befell Shirley Stobart on April 26, 1986 around 8:00 a.m. as she drove a truck to Baton Rouge in preparation for a crawfish boil. The accident occurred on I-10 between Baton Rouge and Lafayette.

While crossing a bridge, Mrs. Stobart proceeded from the right lane to the left lane of the interstate to pass another car. As she exited the bridge, she lost control of the truck. The truck moved onto the grassy median and rolled over several times before coming to a stop. Mrs. Stobart was seriously injured.

Mrs. Stobart along with her husband filed suit against the State through DOTD, claiming that a defect in the road caused her to lose control of her vehicle. The trial judge apportioned fault 50 percent to the state and 50 percent to Mrs. Stobart. Defendants filed a suspensive appeal.

The court of appeal reversed the trial court, finding that the "sole reason for the accident was Stobart's failure to maintain control of her vehicle." The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that DOTD had actual or constructive notice of a defect in the roadway.

It was factual, rather than legal, grounds which prompted the court of appeal to reverse the trial court's findings and judgment. The appellate court concluded that the record did not support two crucial predicates necessary for the plaintiff to recover. ¹ First, the appellate court concluded that the evidence did not establish that the roadway contained a defect. Furthermore, the court concluded that even had the plaintiffs' established that the roadway contained a defect, the plaintiffs would be barred from recovery because the plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden of proving that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the defect.

The trial court's findings that a defect existed in the roadway and that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the defect are factual findings which should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error. While the Court of Appeal correctly identified the manifest error-clearly wrong standard as the standard to be applied to appellate review of fact, the appellate court erred in its application of the standard. ²

A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's or a jury's finding of fact in the absence of "manifest error" or unless it is "clearly wrong." Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). This court has announced 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) the appellate court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous).

See Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987).

This test dictates that a reviewing court must do more than simply review the record for some evidence which supports or controverts the trial court's finding. Id. The reviewing court must review the record in its entirety to determine whether the trial court's finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.

Nevertheless, the 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. See generally, Cosse v. Allen-Bradley Co., 601 So.2d 1349, 1351 (La.1992); Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La.1991); Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106, 1112 (La.1990). Even though an appellate court may feel its own evaluations and inferences are more reasonable than the factfinder's, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review where conflict exists in the testimony. Rosell v. Esco, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989); Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978). However, where documents or objective evidence so contradict the witness's story, or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face, that a reasonable factfinder would not credit the witness's story, the court of appeal may find manifest error or clear wrongness even in a finding purportedly based upon a credibility determination. Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844-45. Nonetheless, this Court has emphasized that "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.' " Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La.1991) (quoting Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106, 1112 (La.1990)).

This court has recognized that "[t]he reason for this well-settled principle of review is based not only upon the trial court's better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court's access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts." Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973). Thus, where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Id.

In the present case, we conclude, after review of the record, that the trial judge was presented with two permissible views concerning whether a defect existed in the roadway as well as whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the defect. The trial court's findings were not manifestly erroneous.

We first address the trial court's finding that the roadway contained a defect. The appellate court found and the defendants urge that the documentary evidence ³ reveals no defect in the roadway. However, several witnesses testified that the roadway was substandard.

Mrs. Stobart testified that the roadway contained several bumps and a pothole. Larry Horton, the state trooper who investigated the accident, corroborated Mrs. Stobart's testimony.

The accident report prepared by Officer Horton does not refer to a pothole in the roadway. However, Officer Horton testified that several bumps and a pothole did indeed exist in the roadway. And his accident report specifically referred to the bumps. Officer Horton also testified that when he drove over the bridge in the left lane he noticed the roadway contained a bump in the left lane. Moreover, Horton testified that he had observed vehicles bounce as they entered and left the bridge. Horton concluded that Mrs. Stobart was surprised by the bumps. Officer Horton reached this conclusion "from [his] observing people who appeared to be travelling through the area, when they came across that bump, there was a severe shock ... [and from] listening to and conversation from drivers on the CB radio."

Horton further stated that he inspected Mrs. Stobart's vehicle and noted no defects. He concluded that Mrs. Stobart lost control of her vehicle as she attempted to correct her vehicle after being surprised by the bump.

James Stelly, Mrs. Stobart's ex-husband, testified that he went to the accident scene two days after the accident. Mr. Stelly observed a pothole in the road and a bump at the exit of the bridge. Mr. Stelly noted that he was aware of the poor condition of the roadway and that he avoided driving in the left lane at this point in the interstate because of the poor condition of the roadway.

Mr. Stobart testified that he went to the accident scene the day after the accident. He testified that the roadway contained a pothole. Mr. Stobart stated: "the left hand lane next to the yellow stripe was an extremely bad area where this pot hole existed along with deteriorating crack further down." Referring to the pot hole, Mr. Stobart stated: "they were deep enough to hang a tire and cause your steering wheel to jerk in your hands because it had done that to me in my pick up." Moreover, Mr. Stobart testified that the roadway on each end of the bridge had experienced "an extreme amount of settlement" and that "[i]t had been repeatedly patched up."

Moreover, Luther Coxe, Jr., the plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert noted that the video revealed that vehicles proceeding in the left hand lane experienced "considerable bouncing." Based upon Officer Horton's testimony and report, the other witnesses' testimony, the photographs taken by Mr. Stobart, the video taken by Mr. Stelly, and his own investigation, Mr. Coxe concluded: "[i]n my opinion, the condition of the bridge and it's exit with respect to the traffic way are the initiating factors to this incident."

Mr. Gene B. Moody, the plaintiff's civil engineer expert, also testified that the video revealed...