Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 31, 2017; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The appeal stems from a district court's judgment dismissing personal injury claims of plaintiffs Lorrie Sandifer, Pamela Johnson, Sharon Ogden, Vanessa Davis, and Marvine Shedrick against the City of Kenner with prejudice. The plaintiffs were injured when a miniature amusement park train, operated by R. R Train Company, Inc., derailed during a field trip organized by Jefferson Parish's Head Start Program on May 12, 2006. The plaintiffs filed two consolidated actions against Kenner, R. R Train Company, Inc., Richard T. Jacobs (owner of R. R Train Company), and train operator Fernand Webber.
Following a bench trial, the district court initially dismissed Jacobs from the case and later granted a new trial to consider additional evidence concerning res ipsa loquitur, which allows negligence to be inferred from the nature of the accident. After reviewing expert testimony, the court ultimately dismissed the claims against Kenner, concluding that the plaintiffs did not prove that Kenner's negligence caused their injuries. The court's decision was affirmed on appeal. The procedural history includes an intervention by Jefferson Parish for reimbursement of workers’ compensation, a cross-claim by the train company against Kenner for indemnification, and a dismissal of claims against Jacobs due to a lack of cause of action. Furthermore, claims against R. R Train Company were stayed following its Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in February 2014.
On May 30, 2015, a bench trial was held in which five plaintiff-passengers testified they remained seated and did not contribute to the train's derailment. Plaintiff Marvine Shedrick, positioned at the rear, confirmed she did not observe any other passenger movements that could cause the train to flip nor did she see anyone leaning against the train. All plaintiffs denied seeing any loose or rotten rail ties. However, their counsel presented two safety inspection reports from the Louisiana Office of the State Fire Marshal, indicating that some rail ties were loose and rotten, with orders for replacement issued prior to and after the accident. Both reports were admitted into evidence.
Richard T. Jacobs, owner of R. R Train Company, provided deposition testimony stating it was Kenner’s responsibility to repair the track and that he informed them of the need for repairs per the December 2005 report. Jacobs identified three potential causes for the derailment: excessive speed, passenger weight shift, or track failure, acknowledging that track failure might not leave visible evidence. He conducted a post-accident inspection and noted no loose or rotten cross ties in the accident area.
Defendant Fernand Webber, the train operator, testified about his standard inspection procedure before operating the train. He stated he walked the tracks, checked the locomotive, and performed a secondary inspection without identifying any track issues. On the day of the accident, he specifically recalled inspecting the curve where the derailment occurred and did not see any defects or rotten cross ties. A Daily Inspection log from May 12, 2006, confirmed Webber's inspections of various components, including the tracks and cross ties.
Mr. Webber, the train operator, testified about the accident occurring after he allowed passengers to board and instructed them to remain seated with arms and legs inside the train. He was driving at a consistent speed of five miles per hour when he felt a jiggle indicative of movement on the train, similar to previous experiences with passengers shifting in their seats. Upon checking, he noticed one of the train cars tipping, and by the time he could stop, both cars had overturned. Although he didn't directly observe any passenger movement before the incident, he equated the sensation to typical passenger behavior.
Ruven St. Pierre, who conducted the safety inspection on December 6, 2005, stated that the train and tracks passed inspection, despite noting some loose or rotten cross ties in other areas, which he assessed as not severe enough to warrant shutting down operations. He confirmed the gauge of the track was within acceptable limits. Following the accident on May 12, 2006, St. Pierre inspected the scene and found no issues with the tracks at the accident site, although he noted loose cross ties elsewhere.
Claude Ray inspected the train and tracks later, ordering the replacement of all wood cross ties but did not specifically address the accident's cause. Richard Chauvin, a safety inspector from Kenner, corroborated that tracks were in good condition after his inspection two weeks post-accident, finding no defects that could have contributed to the incident.
The State Fire Marshalls found no defects in the train cars or tracks contributing to the incident, attributing the sole factor to passenger weight. Mr. Chauvin confirmed that the Fire Marshal did not indicate a need to replace all cross ties during inspection. He further stated that Kenner was responsible for track maintenance, which was not performed, as per Mr. Jacobs' testimony. The district court ruled in favor of Kenner on May 6, 2015, concluding that while Kenner owned the tracks and was aware of maintenance issues, the plaintiffs did not prove that the alleged defects—loose or rotten cross ties—caused their injuries. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument for res ipsa loquitur, noting they failed to eliminate other probable causes such as temperature changes, which could lead to derailment, as testified by Mr. Jacobs. The court also pointed out that there was no evidence linking the unaddressed cross ties to the derailment location. Following the judgment, the Sandifer plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial on May 13, 2015, claiming insufficient factual basis for attributing the derailment to temperature changes, as no evidence supported such a change at the time of the incident. They argued that since the court dismissed passenger weight shift and speed as causes, they had sufficiently eliminated other possibilities to invoke res ipsa loquitur, and intended to secure Mr. Jacobs’ live testimony for further clarification on derailment causes.
On June 25, 2015, the district court granted a new trial focusing on the issue of res ipsa, allowing for new evidence if Mr. Jacobs was available. The subsequent trial commenced on June 21, 2016, where the court accepted Richard Jacobs as an expert in miniature train operation and derailment. Jacobs examined potential causes of the derailment, dismissing excessive speed as a factor since the locomotive remained on the tracks and the passenger cars slid close to the rails. He noted that if speed had been an issue, the train would have derailed at the curve rather than several feet down the track.
Jacobs challenged the plaintiffs' theory that rotten or loose cross ties caused the derailment, asserting that multiple failures would be necessary for the rails to come out of gauge. He stated that if the train had derailed due to track issues, it would have done so at the point of failure. During cross-examination, he confirmed that his visual inspection post-accident showed no signs of rotten or loose cross ties, and he did not observe damage indicative of the train having derailed before flipping over. He concluded that a weight shift was the most likely cause of the accident and considered the passengers' weights provided in the police report, which included individuals ranging from 125 to 286 pounds.
Accurate passenger weight data from the police report may indicate how weight distribution contributed to the accident. Expert testimony suggested that if a heavy passenger was positioned on one side of the train, it could lead to a tipping over if they leaned that way. During questioning, Mr. Jacobs clarified that while a train derailment doesn’t inherently cause it to flip, a weight shift or speeding around a curve could lead to such an event. He acknowledged that problems with the track could also be a factor, but emphasized that for the train to flip, there must be additional contributing factors beyond mere derailment. The district court ultimately ruled in favor of Kenner, crediting Mr. Jacobs’ opinion that a weight shift was the likely cause of the accident and concluding that plaintiffs did not prove Kenner's negligence was responsible. Following the judgment, the court noted the need for a final appealable judgment, prompting a remand for necessary amendments.
On February 8, 2017, the district court issued an amended judgment dismissing the claims of plaintiffs Lori Sandifer, Pamela Johnson, Sharon Ogden, and Vanessa Davis with prejudice. This judgment was further amended on March 9, 2017, to include the claims of Marvine and LC Shedrick, also dismissed with prejudice. Both groups of plaintiffs appealed the judgment.
The Sandifer plaintiffs raised two main errors: they argued that the district court erred by not applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur due to a lack of direct evidence regarding the cause of a miniature train derailment, and they contended that the court failed to find that the City of Kenner's negligence was the probable cause of the derailment, despite evidence of defective tracks and Kenner's responsibility for their maintenance.
The Shedrick plaintiffs presented four assignments of error: they claimed the district court improperly imposed an elevated burden of proof on them regarding proving alternative causes of the accident; they argued that the court erred in attributing the accident to a temperature change affecting track gauge without supporting evidence; they contended that the court failed to apply res ipsa loquitur, despite substantial circumstantial evidence of Kenner's negligence; and they asserted that the court erred by not awarding damages for their injuries.
In response, Kenner provided several alternative arguments to uphold the district court's decision, including that the court misapplied res ipsa loquitur because direct evidence showed the tracks were not defective, and that it should have granted Kenner statutory immunity and recognized the limitations of liability for political subdivisions. Kenner also argued that the train tracks should be classified as playground equipment rather than an amusement ride.
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, indicating that further consideration of Kenner’s arguments was unnecessary. The issues raised by both Sandifer and Shedrick plaintiffs regarding res ipsa loquitur were found to be without merit, as the reviewing court generally does not disturb factual findings unless there is manifest error.
The Louisiana Supreme Court established a two-part test for appellate review of factual findings in Arceneaux: (1) confirming a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's finding, and (2) ensuring the finding is not clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. If the trial court’s findings are supported by the record and reasonable, the appellate court will not reverse. Additionally, if there are two permissible interpretations of the evidence, the fact finder's choice is not manifestly erroneous.
In this case, the plaintiffs had the burden to prove that the defendant's conduct was a cause-in-fact of their injuries, that a duty of care was owed, that the duty was breached, and that the risk was within the duty's protective scope. The district court found no manifest error in concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove Kenner’s negligence regarding track maintenance caused their injuries. Testimony from multiple witnesses indicated there were no defective cross ties at the accident site, and expert testimony supported the conclusion that track failure was not the cause of injuries.
After a new trial was granted to the plaintiffs, the district court ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows for an inference of negligence based on circumstantial evidence, did not necessitate a finding of Kenner’s negligence. For res ipsa loquitur to apply, the plaintiffs must establish that the injury typically does not occur without negligence, eliminate other potential causes, and demonstrate that the alleged negligence falls within the defendant's duty. The doctrine is not applicable when specific acts of negligence are claimed and direct evidence exists. Additionally, the application of this doctrine does not absolve the plaintiff from proving all necessary elements for recovery by a preponderance of the evidence.
Plaintiffs alleged that Kenner's negligence, specifically the failure to maintain train tracks, caused an accident. However, testimony from both inspectors and the plaintiffs’ own expert excluded track failure as a probable cause, indicating that excessive speed or a weight shift were the only potential causes for the train flipping over. The expert's assertion that there was no evidence of a derailment before the flip effectively undermined the plaintiffs' causation theory. The court found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof regarding track failure, leading to the affirmation of the district court's dismissal of their claims.
Regarding the Shedrick plaintiffs' assertion of error concerning the cause of the accident related to temperature changes affecting track gauge, the court clarified that the district court's judgment was not based on this finding but rather on the failure to prove track failure as the cause. Additionally, the plaintiffs contended that the district court erred by not awarding damages, but this was also dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to prove all elements of negligence.
The court confirmed the dismissal of all claims against Kenner, affirming the judgment without addressing Kenner's argument about liability immunity under the Recreational Immunity Statute, as the affirmation was based on other grounds. The Shedrick plaintiffs did not need to file a separate motion for a new trial, as a new trial can be granted by the court on its own or upon contradictory motion.
