Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 16, 1990; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
In the case of Rodney Boudoin v. The City of Kenner and others, Boudoin was riding his motorcycle at 20 to 25 mph when he entered an intersection and collided with a van driven by Daniel Murray, after failing to notice a missing stop sign that was found lying on the ground nearby. Boudoin sued Jefferson Parish, the City of Kenner, and Murray, claiming injuries from the accident, while Allstate Insurance Company, representing Murray, filed a separate subrogation claim against Boudoin for damages to the van. The trial court consolidated the cases and ultimately dismissed Boudoin's claims, awarding Allstate approximately $1,600.
Boudoin's appeal challenges these judgments, but the court affirms them. The court discussed two legal theories for liability regarding the missing stop sign: negligence under Civil Code Article 2315 and strict liability under Article 2317. For negligence, Boudoin had to prove that the public entity knew about the missing sign and failed to address it within a reasonable time. The concept of knowledge can be actual or constructive, depending on whether the entity was informed of the defect or if it had existed long enough for the entity to have noticed it.
Under strict liability, prior to 1985, plaintiffs only needed to show that a defect presented an unreasonable risk of injury, regardless of the entity's knowledge. However, post-1985 amendments to La. R.S. 9:2800 established that a public entity can only be liable if it had actual or constructive notice of the defect before the accident and failed to remedy it. This statute was applicable as the accident occurred on January 15, 1986.
To establish liability under negligence or strict liability theories, the plaintiff needed to demonstrate that the City of Kenner had actual or constructive knowledge of the missing stop sign. It is acknowledged that the sign was under Kenner's control and that the city did not receive actual notice of the missing sign until two days post-accident, at which point it was replaced almost immediately. Eye-witness Sadie Lamonte testified that she first observed the missing sign on January 13, two days before the accident on January 15, and noticed it was replaced the day after the accident. Although she reported the issue to Jefferson Parish, she was informed it was Kenner's responsibility and did not follow up with Kenner. Delmas Bosarge, the traffic engineer, indicated that Kenner's first notice was on January 17, and although streets were organized into inspection zones, there were no records confirming that the intersection was inspected the Friday before the accident. Boudoin, who entered the intersection without slowing down, acknowledged visibility issues but did not see Murray's van in time to stop. The trial judge concluded that Kenner had neither actual nor constructive notice of the missing sign, a finding upheld on appeal. The plaintiff contended that the absence of logs or testimony from inspectors should have led to a finding of constructive knowledge. However, the court maintained that it was the plaintiff's responsibility to provide evidence indicating that the sign had been down long enough for Kenner to be aware, which was not sufficiently established. Lamonte's testimony indicated the sign was down on Monday, with the possibility it might have been down since Friday, but this did not conclusively demonstrate the city should have known about the issue.
The trial court found no error in determining that the sign at the intersection was likely in place the Friday before the accident, countering speculation that it had been down for an extended period. The court ruled that the city lacked constructive knowledge of the missing sign, thus not rendering it liable to the plaintiff, Ms. Lamonte. Additionally, Boudoin was found 100% at fault for the accident due to his negligence in approaching the intersection without verifying safety and failing to slow down. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court were affirmed.
