Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 29, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Mary Phyllis Soileau sustained severe leg injuries in a November 2007 accident involving a detached front-end loader. She filed a lawsuit in April 2008 against Deere Company, the Town of Mamou, and Harry Smith Jr. et al., including Smith’s insurer, Hartford Insurance Company. A "high/low" agreement was established in May 2009, capping Hartford’s liability at $2,500,000 regardless of the jury’s verdict. After settling with Deere, Soileau proceeded to trial against Smith’s and Hartford in October 2010. During the trial, she dismissed Smith’s personally and their company, leading Hartford to argue it had no obligation to pay due to policy language and the Louisiana Direct Action Statute. The jury found Soileau was entitled to $9,429,758.81 in damages, assigning fault of 15% to Smith’s and Mamou, and 70% to Deere, resulting in a judgment against Hartford for $1,400,000. Hartford’s motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied, prompting appeals from both parties. Initially, the appellate court found legal error in denying Hartford's exception of no right of action, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed this, affirming Soileau's claim against Hartford remained viable despite the dismissal of the insureds. The appellate court was instructed to consider Hartford's remaining contentions, specifically challenging the $7.5 million jury award for general damages as excessive and prejudiced against insurance companies due to the plaintiff's counsel's conduct during the trial.
Plaintiffs' counsel misled the jury by suggesting that the plaintiff could not recover damages from Deere, the settling manufacturer, potentially influencing the jury to raise the damage award. The jury's award of $750,000 for future medical expenses was deemed speculative, lacking specific medical testimony regarding future care needs and costs. This was inconsistent with physician testimony indicating that the plaintiff, Soileau, would not require future surgeries but only periodic office visits and medication. Soileau challenged the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the burden of proof and apportionment of fault under the Louisiana Product Liability Act, claiming that the jury made errors in fault allocation.
Soileau detailed the significant impact of the accident on her life, highlighting her active roles in public service and community activities in Mamou, including various coaching and festival involvement. Following the accident, she suffered severe injuries, leading to a lengthy hospitalization of 65 days and 22 surgeries, with the last surgery occurring just before trial. She experiences chronic pain, requires daily pain and sleep medication, and can no longer engage in her previous activities.
Dr. Gregory M. Savoy, an expert surgeon, testified about Soileau's extensive injuries, including severe leg trauma and multiple fractures. He performed numerous surgeries to address her injuries, which resulted in permanent disability and ongoing medical needs. Photographic evidence was presented to illustrate her injuries and disfigurement. Dr. Savoy confirmed that Soileau's condition is stable yet requires ongoing monitoring and treatment, with her leg remaining ultra-sensitive and limiting her mobility.
Dr. Savoy performed a surgical procedure on Soileau, utilizing skin from her left leg, resulting in permanent scarring on both her leg and the donor site. He assessed that Soileau would be limited in her physical activities, predicting she could not sit for more than forty-five minutes or walk more than thirty feet, and he did not foresee the need for future surgeries related to her soft tissue injuries. Dr. Stephen Nason, an orthopedic surgeon, characterized Soileau’s leg and ankle injuries as “crushing injuries” that would cause persistent pain. He described surgical interventions involving pins in her ankle and projected that Soileau would have a permanent limp, shortened leg, and would need to use an ankle brace indefinitely. Dr. Nason confirmed that Soileau has a permanent disability requiring lifelong follow-up care and prescribed medications for pain management.
In terms of general damages, the document highlights that courts exercise significant discretion in determining damage awards, which are only altered upon showing a clear abuse of discretion. The appellate courts review the evidence favorably towards the judgment and assess the individual circumstances of the injured party. The jury awarded Soileau a total of $7,500,000.00 in general damages, itemized as $1,000,000 for emotional and mental anguish, $4,500,000 for physical pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for loss of enjoyment of life, and $1,000,000 for scarring and disfigurement. The trial court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) was upheld, affirming that the jury's award was within their discretion and not an abuse thereof.
Soileau has experienced significant life changes due to severe injuries, resulting in a disability that prevents her from engaging in previous physical activities. She suffers ongoing pain and requires mobility aids, relying on her sister for daily tasks. The condition of her leg is severely disfigured and expected to worsen. The jury awarded special damages, including $458,758.81 for past medical expenses, $750,000 for future medical expenses, $120,000 for past lost wages, and $601,000 for future lost wages. Although the defendants contested the award for future medical expenses, the trial established that Soileau would require lifelong medical care, and the jury’s decision was deemed reasonable based on her past expenses and expected future needs.
Soileau also raised concerns regarding the jury instructions on fault allocation under the Louisiana Product Liability Act, arguing that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the burden of proof. However, her failure to object to the instructions during the trial precluded her from appealing this issue. Additionally, she contended that the jury incorrectly apportioned fault, asserting that Smith’s should bear a greater share of the responsibility for the accident, particularly due to a worn warning decal on the front-end loader. Soileau claimed that this negligence was a superseding cause of the incident and argued that Mamou should not be held at fault, as it could not have recognized the dangers of the loader without the warning.
In Thibodeaux v. Ace American Insurance Co., the Louisiana legal standard for the allocation of fault by factfinders was examined. The Louisiana Supreme Court established that appellate review of comparative fault determinations follows a standard that grants deference to the trier of fact, as their allocation of fault involves factual determinations. It emphasized that findings of fact by juries should not be disturbed unless they are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Appellate courts must respect the jury's decisions if they are reasonable based on the evidence presented, even if the appellate court would have weighed the evidence differently.
The factors influencing the degree of fault include the nature of the conduct (inadvertent vs. aware of danger), the risk created, the significance of the conduct, the capacities of the actors involved, and any extenuating circumstances necessitating hasty action. Additionally, the relationship between the negligent conduct and the plaintiff's harm is crucial in determining relative fault.
In the specific case, the jury allocated fault as follows: Smith True Value 15%, Deere and Company 70%, Phyllis Soileau 0%, Town of Mamou 15%, and Randy Toepfer 0%. The jury was instructed to determine the percentage of fault for each party and was informed that Deere had been found partially at fault, but the final percentage was left to the jury's discretion.
Witness testimonies focused on the liability concerning the rental and use of a tractor involved in an accident. Employees from Smith's, including Timothy Estes, Nicholas Miller, and Eric Jackson, detailed the rental process. James Williams, an employee of Mamou, stated that the tractor was not inspected by Smith’s and was transferred directly from Smith's trailer to Mamou's. He described using the tractor to clear a blocked canal, including cutting a chain and utilizing a backhoe for lowering the tractor into the canal. Williams noted a safety meeting had been held before usage, emphasizing that no one should stand under the raised bucket, a guideline all employees were aware of, regardless of labeling.
Mitchell Fontenot, also from Mamou, explained that they rented the Deere tractor after their smaller tractor burned out. He recounted multiple uses of the tractor for cleaning ditches, including the need to lift the bucket to avoid obstacles. During the chain unhooking process, Fontenot used a hammer and punch to dislodge a stuck pin, leading to the front-end loader unexpectedly falling on Soileau. He acknowledged that they should have lowered the bucket during the unhooking, although he did not read warning labels on the tractor.
Johnny Logue, a laborer for Mamou, corroborated the method of lowering and extracting the tractor, mentioning the chain was under tension when they attempted to unhook it. He described the process of using tools to remove a pin, which resulted in the front-end loader falling and injuring Soileau.
Leonard Hammond, supervisor of public works in Opelousas, described a method for lowering a tractor into canals using a chain. Roger Allison, a backhoe operator, recounted the incident where the front-end loader mechanism fell off while he and Sevallis were lowering the tractor into a ditch. Sevallis mentioned struggling with the chain as Logue attempted to remove it while positioned underneath the front-end loader. He noted that once a pin was dislodged, the entire bucket mechanism fell forward.
Mark Rougeau, who rented a tractor from Smith’s in October 2007, testified that after a hydraulic line broke, he replaced it himself but later experienced issues with the front-end loader bucket dropping. He successfully reattached the bucket using a makeshift pin and informed Smith’s upon returning the tractor that the bucket had fallen off. Keith Wyble, another renter, reported that the blade of the shredder he rented fell off while in use, and Smith's advised him to reattach it.
Randall Topher, a welder, stated he had no involvement with the tractor in question. Testimony from expert engineers included Stephen Killingsworth, who represented the plaintiff, and Jeremy Hoffpauir, who represented the defendants. Killingsworth, a seasoned mechanical engineer, inspected the tractor and concluded that both Smith’s and Deere were at fault. He highlighted design flaws with Deere’s front-end loaders, noting that past problems led to the addition of a latch-plate retainer, which was ineffective if users altered the pin size or used equipment improperly. He asserted that while Deere made corrections, they did not completely resolve the issues leading to the separation of the latch plate from the unit under certain conditions.
Operating conditions related to the tractor were not definitively tested, but it was suggested that John Deere faced issues due to design and maintenance failures. Killingsworth criticized Deere for not providing a towing mechanism or proper instructions, leaving users to figure out towing methods on their own. He indicated that Deere could have implemented safety features, such as additional latch-plate retainers and clearer warnings about the necessity of using factory pins.
Killingsworth deemed the tractor's design defective, despite its occasional proper functioning. He pointed out that Smith's attempted repairs were improperly executed, specifically regarding welding on the supporting square tubing, which deviated from Deere’s provided repair kit and installation instructions. This negligence led to improper loading on the claws, increasing the risk of detachment.
Killingsworth also stated that Smith's failed to offer adequate usage instructions and provided incorrect pins for the latch-plate retainer. After renting the tractor five months post-accident, he discovered the wrong pin was still in use and noted the tractor’s poor condition, including a worn warning label about using the front-end loader without the latch retainer engaged.
Hoffpauir, who inspected the tractor shortly after the accident, corroborated that the latch-plate retainer was bent and the warning label had degraded. He documented previous incidents where the loader bucket had detached, concluding that Soileau would not have been injured had the loader bucket been lowered or if she had not been positioned directly beneath the raised loader. He also noted that the operator's manual lacked instructions for securing the tractor with the loader. Hoffpauir asserted that Smith’s methods were reasonable and did not contribute to the injury.
The accident occurred when the tractor was pulled from a ditch, causing the latch plate to dislodge and the bucket assembly to rotate downwards due to the chain’s force. He dismissed the notion that poor welding caused the accident and opined that if the bucket had been lowered before the Mamou employees began their work, the load would have been relieved, preventing the injury. However, he acknowledged that Deere should have included a warning label on the bucket about the risk of dislodgment.
Eric Jackson, the rental and hardware manager at Smith’s, testified about the availability of Deere parts, specifically stating that he had never seen or approved a pin like the one referenced by Killingsworth in relation to the latch-plate retainer. Jackson confirmed that throughout his nearly eleven years at Smith’s, only Deere pins were used. However, he acknowledged he was not present when the tractor was rented to Mamou. The jury ultimately found Killingsworth’s testimony more credible, leading to the conclusion that Deere was primarily at fault for the accident due to its awareness of loader issues, product recalls, and failure to address these problems. There was conflicting evidence regarding the pin’s role in the accident, and despite Smith’s letting the warning decal wear away, it was suggested that Mamou employees may not have seen it even if it were intact. The jury could reasonably infer that the accident would have occurred regardless of the visibility of the label. The missing label was not deemed the superseding cause; instead, the faulty latch-plate retainer and Deere's inadequate towing instructions were identified as primary causes. The jury’s finding that Mamou had a minor share of liability was also upheld, as it was deemed prudent for them to have lowered the bucket before attempting to remove the chain. The jury’s verdict in favor of Soileau for $9,429,758.81 was affirmed, and all appeal costs were assigned to Hartford Insurance Company. The warning label emphasized the risks of operating the loader without the latch retainer engaged.
