Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 13, 2001; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Judges ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, JOHN D. SAUNDERS, and MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN presided over the appeal concerning the jury's verdict that the State of Louisiana's Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) was not liable for the death of David Billings. The incident on March 31, 1993, involved Mr. Billings falling asleep while driving, leading his vehicle off the road, impacting a guardrail, and ultimately flipping over and striking a concrete support post. Mr. Billings admitted to having fallen asleep before losing consciousness and later dying, with an autopsy revealing alcohol and marijuana in his system.
Paula Billings, widow of Mr. Billings, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against DOTD on January 19, 1994, seeking damages for her and her children following the jury trial that occurred in August 2000, which concluded with the jury finding no fault on the part of DOTD. Mrs. Billings appealed this decision, raising several assignments of error, particularly regarding the admissibility of her husband's misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana. She contended that the trial judge erred in allowing this evidence because it was not included in DOTD's pretrial exhibit list and argued that its prejudicial impact outweighed its relevance. The appeal also included objections to the exclusion of certain expert testimony and claims about jury errors related to fault and damages.
Mrs. Billings highlights specific provisions of Section B regarding the exchange of witness and exhibit lists, stating that each party must meticulously list exhibits and that failure to introduce a listed exhibit allows the opposing party to do so. Furthermore, it emphasizes that witnesses or exhibits not properly identified and listed may be excluded without good cause. She references case law supporting the need for orderly pretrial procedures and the discretion of trial courts to modify pretrial orders, arguing that the introduction of her husband’s marijuana conviction surprised her and negatively impacted her case. However, the court finds the trial judge acted within discretion in modifying the pretrial order and dismisses this argument.
Additionally, Mrs. Billings contends that the trial judge erred by allowing her husband's misdemeanor conviction to be used to impeach her economic evaluation, arguing its prejudicial nature outweighed its probative value. She cites testimony from her husband's employer, who indicated that criminal history did not influence employment decisions. The court, however, upholds the trial judge's decision, noting that the trial judge's assessment of evidence probative value is given considerable deference unless a clear abuse of discretion is evident.
Regarding expert witnesses, Mrs. Billings claims several errors: the exclusion of Jeff Galpin's expert testimony and video due to lack of scientific foundation; the refusal to examine Dr. Joseph Blaschke for bias; and the allowance of Dr. Blaschke's testimony regarding modified guardrails affecting the Billings’ vehicle. The court reviews these claims but does not find merit in Mrs. Billings' arguments against the trial judge's rulings on expert testimony.
Mrs. Billings argued that Mr. Galpin should be qualified as an expert based on specialized knowledge regarding vehicle dynamics on ramped surfaces. According to La.Code Evid. art. 702, expert testimony is permissible if it aids the trier of fact; however, the trial judge has significant discretion in determining whether to allow such testimony. The judge concluded that Mr. Galpin's testimony lacked a scientific basis and found it to have minimal relevance to the case, thus ruling against its admissibility. Upon review, the decision to exclude Mr. Galpin's testimony was upheld as not clearly erroneous.
Additionally, Mrs. Billings contended that she should have been allowed to question DOTD's expert, Dr. Joseph D. Blaschke, about alleged bias, citing past cases where his testimony was deemed biased and unreliable. During trial discussions, the court indicated that while questions regarding bias could be posed, inquiries about prior court findings of bias were inappropriate. La. Code Evid. art. 607(D)(1) allows extrinsic evidence to challenge a witness's credibility but permits exclusion if it risks undue time consumption or confusion. Ultimately, the trial judge did not err in prohibiting questions about Dr. Blaschke's bias in previous cases.
The trial judge allowed Mrs. Billings to question Dr. Blaschke about potential bias against the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) but noted that she did not pursue this line of questioning, despite preserving her objection regarding his qualifications based on that bias. The appellate review found no error in the trial judge’s decision. Mrs. Billings argued that Dr. Blaschke's testimony on modified guardrails was flawed, citing his inability to specify how he would design a guardrail using 1970s standards. However, Dr. Blaschke, accepted as an expert in accident reconstruction and traffic engineering, stated that while he could not determine a specific design without all relevant factors, the terminal design was permissible at the time. His qualifications included three advanced degrees from Texas A&M, military experience as a transportation engineer, and extensive work in traffic engineering and accident reconstruction, including a history of consulting and teaching. Additionally, he demonstrated familiarity with guardrail design standards and relevant accident reports. Overall, the court found no merit in Mrs. Billings' assignment of error regarding Dr. Blaschke's qualifications and testimony.
Dr. Blaschke testified regarding his observations of the accident scene, the vehicle involved, and the results of Mr. Billings' blood alcohol test. He also reviewed literature on barrier design from the 1960s to the 1990s. The trial judge holds significant discretion in evaluating an expert witness's competency, and such decisions will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. The trial judge found Dr. Blaschke competent to discuss guardrail design, and this finding was upheld.
Mrs. Billings' arguments focus on the jury's conclusion that the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) was not at fault for her husband's death. The court maintains that a jury's factual findings can only be overturned if manifestly erroneous. The assessment relies on whether the jury's conclusions were reasonable based on the entire record. Mrs. Billings contends that DOTD failed to adhere to mandatory AASHTO standards regarding traffic barriers, particularly referencing the 1977 guide on barrier design. However, this guide was ultimately determined to contain recommendations rather than mandatory requirements, emphasizing that alterations to the standards could impact barrier effectiveness. The purpose of the guide was to present design guidelines rather than impose strict mandates, specifically stating that its contents serve as guidelines for those responsible for traffic barrier design and installation.
The guide acknowledges that its criteria are largely based on subjective data due to the complex subject matter, necessitating careful evaluation and engineering judgment for proper application. Mrs. Billings’ claim that deviations from AASHTO standards by the DOTD constituted fault per se lacked merit. Testimony presented at trial indicated that the guardrail near the La. Hwy 724 overpass met acceptable design and installation standards. Dr. Blaschke testified that the guardrail was designed to prevent vehicles from impacting the posts supporting the overpass and to address issues with earlier guardrail designs, which resulted in serious injuries due to their end points causing abrupt stops or penetrating vehicles. The current guardrail featured a turned down end treatment that aimed to redirect vehicles rather than halt them abruptly, though this design introduced a new issue where vehicles could be lifted and function as a ramp upon impact at certain angles.
In 1978, a safety improvement plan for Interstate 10 proposed removing intermediate posts and stiffening the barrier near columns to enhance safety. By 1979, modifications or replacements of guardrails, including the one struck by Mr. Billings, had been implemented. Dr. Blaschke noted that each guardrail design comes with trade-offs that may be more effective for specific collision types. While Mrs. Billings’ expert preferred a design that would collapse to allow vehicles to pass over it, Dr. Blaschke pointed out that such a design could lead vehicles off the roadway behind the barrier, with unpredictable outcomes depending on the vehicle's speed and driver actions.
Dr. Blaschke testified that he could not definitively determine the outcome had a different design been used, but he believed the accident would have been similar due to inherent issues with the vehicle's interaction with the guardrail system. He noted that if a vehicle went over the rail, it would still be directed toward fixed posts, resulting in comparable consequences. He explained that even with a breakaway post design, if the vehicle approached parallel to the posts, it would extend the time before the vehicle ramped up again, likely leading to a similar crash scenario. He mentioned that if the safety project from 1979 had implemented a system with weakened posts and retained the turndown end treatments, the driver would still face risks of knocking down posts and encountering rigid structures.
Mr. Ghara's testimony supported Dr. Blaschke's views, stating that while a turned down end treatment could be effective, it is not infallible as its performance can vary based on impact severity, speed, angle, and other factors. He also noted that recent changes in vehicle types, particularly an increase in SUVs and trucks, have revealed shortcomings in existing end treatments.
The jury found Dr. Blaschke's testimony credible, favoring it over the opposing expert testimonies presented by Mrs. Billings. The jury's determination on expert credibility is not subject to overturning unless a manifest error is evident, which was not found in this case. Consequently, the jury's decision not to assign fault to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) regarding Mr. Billings' accident was upheld, and the trial judge's decision was affirmed. All appeal costs were assigned to Mrs. Billings. Dr. Blaschke also described the "clear zone" concept, emphasizing the importance of having an unobstructed area near roadways to provide drivers a chance to recover if they veer off course. This design principle included using five "fall down posts" in the guardrail and a turndown end, originally published in 1971.
