Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. City of Shreveport

Citations: 914 So. 2d 1212; 2005 La. App. LEXIS 2388; 2005 WL 2980582Docket: No. 40,188-CA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 7, 2005; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The City of Shreveport, its bus service SporTran, and bus driver Inez Wiggins appeal a judgment that awarded damages to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by his minor son, Blake Johnson, in a vehicular collision involving a city bus. The incident occurred on March 1, 2003, when Pamela Cantley, driving a Pontiac Grand Prix with her mother and nephew, stopped at a red light. The occupants of the car testified that the bus struck the rear of their vehicle, whereas Wiggins and a bus passenger denied any contact. Cantley described feeling an impact and seeing the bus close behind her car. She checked for damage and, seeing none, opted not to call the police at the scene, believing the situation was minor. However, Blake later experienced neck pain and a headache, leading to a visit to a clinic where a physician diagnosed him with muscle spasms and injuries consistent with a car accident. Blake’s father filed a lawsuit against the city and the bus driver, resulting in a judgment of $19,147.94, including $15,000 in general damages. The defendants appeal this ruling.

A court of appeal is limited in its ability to overturn a trial court’s factual findings unless there is clear evidence of "manifest error" or a determination that the finding is "clearly wrong." To successfully reverse a trial court's finding, the appellate court must ascertain that no reasonable factual basis supports the trial court's conclusion and that the finding is indeed clearly wrong. This requires a comprehensive review of the entire record, rather than merely searching for evidence that contradicts or supports the trial court's decision. In cases where testimony conflicts, the credibility assessments and factual inferences made by the trial court are generally upheld, even if the appellate court may have differing evaluations.

Witnesses in the case provided consistent accounts of the collision, with Mrs. Johnson and other occupants describing a strong impact without recalling significant movement of their vehicle. Specific testimonies indicated varying perceptions of the impact's force, with some witnesses asserting that they felt a severe jolt but did not observe any movement of their vehicle post-collision. Medical records indicated confusion over the seating arrangements of the occupants, with discrepancies concerning whether Blake was a front or back seat passenger, but medical opinions on causation remained unchanged regardless of this detail. Investigating officers did not find visible damage to the vehicles involved, and no citations were issued.

Officer White testified that he had never encountered a situation where a city bus struck a passenger vehicle without causing damage. Sgt. Fields similarly noted he had not investigated a bus rear-ending a passenger vehicle that resulted in no physical damage. Witness Wiggins recounted that the passenger vehicle had pulled into the intersection and then backed up toward the bus, stopping without contact. In contrast, Robinson did not recall the car backing up, while Mrs. Johnson and Cantley denied the car stopped in the intersection. Dr. Guice provided medical insight, stating that Blake's cervical x-ray showed loss of curve indicative of ligament injury from acceleration-deceleration, which is unusual for a 15-year-old unless caused by an accident. He acknowledged whiplash could occur without direct impact. Shreveport and Wiggins contended on appeal that the absence of physical evidence of contact undermined the plaintiff's burden of proof, citing a Fourth Circuit case that emphasizes the importance of physical evidence when testimony is conflicting. However, the trial court found significant credibility issues with several of the defendant's witnesses, notably noting a divergence in their testimonies. Sgt. Fields contradicted his previous statements regarding Wiggins’ account. Wiggins identified five occupants in the car, including Blake, who Mr. Johnson noted had brown hair at the time of the accident, not blonde as claimed later. Robinson, who sat near Wiggins on the bus, also believed there were five occupants but denied having been driven to her deposition by Wiggins, a claim Wiggins disputed.

The trial court's finding that the bus struck the car, making the defendants liable for the resulting injuries, is upheld as not clearly erroneous. Shreveport and Wiggins argue that the trial court erred by not considering depositions submitted with their post-trial brief, referencing La. R.S. 13:4207, which governs the time frame for judges to render decisions and rule on new trial motions. However, this statute is deemed irrelevant as it solely pertains to the timeline for judgments and new trial motions, and there is no indication that the trial court had kept the record open for new evidence. Consequently, this argument is rejected. The appellants are ordered to pay appeal costs of $118.50, and the judgment is affirmed.