Powell v. Regional Transit Authority

Citations: 701 So. 2d 1370; 95 La.App. 4 Cir. 1426; 1997 La. App. LEXIS 2673; 1997 WL 688793Docket: No. 95-CA-1426

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 4, 1997; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves a legal dispute stemming from a collision between a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) bus and a New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) vehicle on February 20, 1990. Officer Marjorie Powell filed a lawsuit for damages against the RTA and the bus driver, Louise Singleton, seeking a jury trial. The RTA contested the jury trial based on LSA-R.S. 13:5105(A), which prohibits jury trials against political subdivisions. The trial was bifurcated: a jury determined Singleton's liability, finding her free from fault, while the trial judge assessed the case against the RTA, attributing 5% fault to Singleton and awarding Powell $223,214.75.

Discrepancies in the judgments led to motions from both parties, resulting in the trial court granting Powell's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and increasing the award to $223,524.75. The RTA appealed, and the appellate court set aside the JNOV, reinstating the jury’s verdict in favor of Singleton, thus ruling in favor of the RTA against Powell.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine the appropriateness of a bifurcated trial, concluding that such a trial was not warranted when the sole tortfeasor was an employee of a governmental body exempt from jury trials. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court, which reversed its previous judgment and dismissed Powell's suit against the RTA, confirming that actions against both a political subdivision and its employee must be tried by a judge without a jury.

The Supreme Court determined that the jury trial regarding Singleton's liability was flawed, necessitating the dismissal of the jury's verdict. It noted that the trial court's judgment against the RTA in a bench trial had not been reviewed by the Supreme Court, prompting a remand for review of liability under the manifest error standard and damages under the much discretion standard. The first issue for review is whether the trial court erred in finding Louise Singleton negligent in the accident. If no manifest error is found, the damages awarded must also be reviewed.

The relevant facts indicate that on February 20, 1990, NOPD Officer Marjorie Powell was in a police cruiser with Officer Julie Jones, issuing a citation to a vehicle disregarding a traffic signal. After the citation, as Officer Jones returned to the cruiser, an RTA bus driven by Louise Singleton attempted to pass the police vehicle, resulting in the bus's rear door colliding with the police vehicle's slightly open driver’s door. This collision caused the police vehicle to move forward and hit the vehicle being cited. Officer Powell claims to have sustained injuries from this impact. 

Singleton testified about her experience as a bus driver and asserted that she had a clear view of the police vehicle activating its lights before she turned onto Crozat Street. She claimed there was sufficient room to pass the police vehicle and that the police car's door opened into the bus's path, contradicting her ability to pass safely. This was supported by a passenger, Lorraine Alexander, who observed the police vehicle and confirmed that the door of the police car opened as the bus attempted to turn, contributing to the collision.

Hannah Dabon, the driver of a vehicle cited by Officer Julie Jones, reported that she witnessed the bus turn onto Crozat Street and subsequently strike the door of the police vehicle as Officer Jones was closing it. Transit supervisor Yalender Martin, arriving shortly after the incident, affirmed that the bus had passed the police vehicle, suggesting the door was closed when the bus attempted to pass. Officer Jones confirmed she was in the process of closing her door when the bus hit it. Passenger Marjorie Powell, seated in the police vehicle, testified that she was injured when the bus struck Officer Jones's door.

The trial court found bus driver Louise Singleton negligent, reasoning that she failed to notice the flashing lights of the police vehicle before turning. The court emphasized the heightened duty of care required of the bus driver when passing an emergency vehicle, indicating that she should have anticipated an officer might exit. However, the critical legal question was whether the bus driver had a duty to foresee the officer's sudden exit. The court concluded that such a duty was not established by the evidence, as no traffic law required the bus driver to anticipate the police officer's actions. Additionally, Louisiana law mandates that no one should open a vehicle door into moving traffic until it is safe, and emergency vehicle drivers must exercise care for others' safety. Previous case law supported that a bus driver does not have a duty to predict the actions of third parties.

A public conveyance driver, such as a bus operator, is not expected to anticipate that a motorist, including those in emergency vehicles, will violate traffic laws by suddenly opening a vehicle door into moving traffic. In Hurst v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., the court determined that a bus driver was not negligent for not foreseeing an erratic vehicle making an illegal turn. The court reaffirms that while public carriers owe a high degree of care to their passengers, this obligation does not extend to anticipating the actions of law enforcement vehicle occupants. The trial court erred by imposing an elevated duty on bus driver Louise Singleton to foresee the opening of a police vehicle door.

After reviewing the evidence, including testimonies from Singleton, another witness, and the independent witness Lorraine Alexander, the court found that the bus could have safely passed the police vehicle had the door not opened. The point of collision occurred at the rear of the bus, indicating that the door opened after the bus passed. Singleton could not have avoided the collision, as she could not see the door once she passed the police vehicle. Thus, the trial court's finding of negligence against her was manifestly erroneous. The accident was determined to be solely caused by Officer Julie Jones, who opened the police vehicle door into the bus's path.

Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment against Singleton and the Regional Transit Authority (RTA), ruling that there was no liability. The issue of damages was not addressed, and each party will bear its own appeal costs.