 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schexnayder v. LeBlanc Hyundai9/14/2000
CANNELLA, J., CONCURS, WITH REASONS:
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
In this personal injury case, both the plaintiff and a defendant appeal the trial court judgment rendered after trial. For the following reasons, we amend the judgment to reflect the trial court's findings in its reasons for judgment and affirm as amended.
This case arises out of a one-vehicle accident which occurred at approximately 6:00 a.m. on December 17, 1989, on U.S. Highway 61 in St. Charles Parish. Plaintiff/appellant, Katrina Schexnayder, was traveling westbound on U.S. 61, on her way to work in Norco, Louisiana, when her vehicle left the roadway and ran into the end of a "buried-end treatment" guardrail, causing her 1988 Hyundai Excel to become airborne and tumble. The vehicle came to rest approximately one hundred and ten feet from the initial point of impact, on the north side of the guardrail. During the collision, Ms. Schexnayder was ejected from her vehicle, and sustained severe injuries.
Ms. Schexnayder subsequently filed suit against defendant/appellant, State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), and defendant/appellee, LeBlanc Hyundai (LeBlanc). Plaintiff's theory of liability against LeBlanc was that it had failed to properly repair her vehicle and that it had failed to warn her of dangerous conditions existing on her vehicle. Her theory of liability against the DOTD was that the design of the guardrail which plaintiff's vehicle struck rendered the guardrail defective and unreasonably dangerous.
The matter proceeded to a five-day bench trial on the merits from November 30, 1998 through December 4, 1998. After taking the matter under advisement, on July 9, 1999, the trial court rendered a judgment and reasons for judgment, finding no liability on behalf of LeBlanc. The trial court assigned thirty percent fault to the DOTD (finding the guardrail unreasonably dangerous), and seventy percent comparative fault to the plaintiff. The trial court further found that as a result of the accident, plaintiff suffered $450,000.00 in general damages, $58.344.13 in past medical expenses, $50,500.00 in future medical expenses, $30,000.00 in future pain and suffering, and $3,120.00 in past lost wages. The total damage award of $591,964.13 was reduced by plaintiff's apportionment of fault. Both plaintiff and the DOTD have appealed.
Plaintiff assigns three errors on appeal: the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding no liability on behalf of LeBlanc Hyundai; the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding the State, through the Department of Transportation and Development, only thirty percent liable for plaintiff's damages; and the trial court abused its discretion in awarding plaintiff inadequate damages.
Defendant, the DOTD, also assigns three errors on appeal: the trial court was manifestly erroneous in applying 1977 AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) guidelines to the guardrail; the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding that DOTD knew or should have known that the guardrail was unreasonably dangerous; and the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding DOTD liable to plaintiff for damages. However, the DOTD has failed to brief the first two of its listed errors. Instead, in the Argument section of its brief, the DOTD argues that plaintiff's actions/inactions were the sole cause of her accident; DOTD's conduct was not a cause-in-fact or proximate cause of plaintiff's accident; and the guardrail in question did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the public. All of these arguments address one issue - the liability of the DOTD. Therefore, pursuant to La.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|