State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Guidry

Citations: 536 So. 2d 716; 1988 La. App. LEXIS 2687; 1988 WL 133850Docket: No. 87-1103

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 13, 1988; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves an appeal concerning a collision between a horse ridden by Shane Guidry and a pickup truck driven by Angel Breaux. The primary legal issues include determining fault for the collision, apportioning fault if both parties are at fault, and assessing damages. State Farm, the insurance company for the Breauxs, initiated a lawsuit against Brian Angelle, the horse owner, and Shane Guidry to recover damages for the truck. Angelle counterclaimed for the loss of his horse, leading to further claims and counterclaims among the parties, including Guidry’s cross-claim against the Breauxs and State Farm.

The trial court granted Angelle summary judgment, dismissing State Farm’s and the Breauxs' demands, while Guidry's claim was tried before a jury. The jury found Angel Breaux 10% at fault and Guidry 90% at fault, awarding Guidry $25,000 in damages, which was reduced to $2,500 due to his fault. The trial judge ruled in favor of State Farm on its subrogation claim against Guidry, awarding $1,902.51 after accounting for Breaux's fault.

Following the verdict, Guidry sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, and a suspensive appeal, but the trial court dismissed these motions as untimely and converted the suspensive appeal to a devolutive one. State Farm and the Breauxs did not appeal the decision. In his appeal, Guidry challenges the jury's fault allocation, the exclusion of a photograph from evidence, and the adequacy of the damage award. 

The incident occurred on February 2, 1984, when Angel Breaux was driving on Louisiana Highway 347, approaching two horseback riders. Despite reducing her speed from 55 to 45 mph, Breaux could not maneuver around the riders due to oncoming traffic and continued onto the bridge where the collision occurred.

While driving alongside Shane Guidry, Mrs. Breaux’s truck collided with Guidry's horse after it swung its rear end into the lane. This impact resulted in Guidry being thrown from the horse onto the bridge's shoulder. Guidry contends that the jury's fault assessment of 90% against him and 10% against Mrs. Breaux was erroneous. Mrs. Breaux testified that she was traveling around 55 miles per hour when she first noticed the riders and reduced her speed to 45 miles per hour upon observing Guidry struggling to control his horse. She reported seeing the horse encroach into the traffic lane multiple times as she approached. Although aware of another rider ahead of Guidry, she opted to pass him without slowing down, believing the horse was under control.

Guidry, experienced with horses, noted that horses can unpredictably shift their bodies away from railings when crossing bridges. After the collision, his horse had to be euthanized due to severe injuries. Legal precedent states that motorists are not required to reduce their speed when passing horses unless the animals appear frightened. Motorists have a duty to avoid creating situations that may startle the horse and should exercise ordinary care to prevent frightening the animal or causing a collision, potentially stopping their vehicle if necessary.

In the Plauche case, Rhett Plauche was killed when his horse was startled by a truck that released its air brakes while passing on the Simmesport-Atehafalaya Bridge. The Supreme Court determined that the truck driver was negligent, noting that the situation was not typical for motorist-animal interactions and that the driver had created an unusual circumstance that could frighten the horse. Contributing factors included the bridge's enclosed structure, the noise from the truck, and the horse's confinement due to the truck's size. The court concluded that the driver's failure to stop was unreasonable, leading to the accident.

Similar circumstances were highlighted in Mays v. American Indemnity Co., where a rider was injured when a horse he was riding became uncontrollable after being startled by an automobile. The court found the driver negligent for failing to avoid the rider, while also determining that the rider was contributorily negligent for riding too close to the road. However, this did not prevent recovery because the driver had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. The court's view on the rider's proximity to the roadway diverged from the appellate ruling, emphasizing that under Louisiana law, horse riders are entitled to ride on the highway and possess the same rights and duties as vehicle drivers, barring certain inapplicable provisions.

The jury's finding that Mrs. Breaux was only 10% at fault for the accident was deemed incorrect. On the day of the incident, weather conditions were clear, and Mrs. Breaux had an unobstructed view of the riders and the horse ridden by Guidry, which left the shoulder and entered the roadway. Despite having the opportunity to reduce her speed below 45 mph and seeing a car give the riders space, she failed to act cautiously. Given her familiarity with horses and the narrowness of the bridge, she should not have attempted to pass Guidry until it was safe to do so. Consequently, the court concluded that Mrs. Breaux was 100% at fault.

Regarding Guidry’s negligence, the jury's finding was also overturned. Guidry had the right to ride his horse on the road and was expected to exercise care comparable to that of a vehicle driver. However, since a horse is not a vehicle, motorists should yield to horses on the roadway under the circumstances presented. The court found no negligence on Guidry's part.

The adequacy of the $25,000 damages awarded to Guidry was challenged as insufficient and an abuse of discretion by the jury. The court referenced a two-step analysis for appellate review of damage awards, noting that such awards can only be altered if a clear abuse of discretion is established. In reviewing the medical aftermath of the accident, Guidry experienced back pain that led to consultations with multiple physicians and resulted in a diagnosis of spondylolisthesis. It was determined that while the accident did not cause the condition, it may have triggered its symptoms. Dr. Blanda recommended a brace and exercises for Guidry’s ongoing back issues.

Dr. Blanda treated Shane Guidry for back issues following an accident, noting in December 1984 that a brace was ineffective. A CAT scan on December 11 revealed a ruptured disc at L-4, L-5, and spondylolisthesis at L-5, S-1. Dr. Blanda linked the injury to the accident, assuming no prior back problems existed. By January 1985, Guidry reported intermittent pain, and surgery was not recommended. In March, Guidry's pain worsened, prompting Dr. Blanda to recommend fusion surgery, although it was considered elective due to no neurological deficits. Guidry expressed a desire to continue conservative treatment until a follow-up in six months. At the trial, he had not returned for further evaluation but had decided to proceed with surgery. Dr. Blanda estimated a 15%-20% anatomical disability and advised against heavy labor. Future medical needs may include medication, therapy, and back support. Guidry's medical expenses totaled approximately $1,898, and future surgical and hospital costs were estimated at about $13,000. Despite appellees' claims that surgery was unproven, the court concluded that Guidry's special damages amounted to around $15,000, with the jury's initial award of $25,000 being insufficient. The court amended the award to $50,000, determining it more appropriate based on similar cases. Additionally, the court reversed the judgment against Guidry regarding property damage, attributing 100% fault to Angel Breaux for the accident. The court ordered that the amended judgment be cast in favor of Guidry for $50,000, plus legal interest and costs of the proceedings, with appeal costs assigned to the appellees.