Articles Posted in Motorcycle Injury

Late in the afternoon of April 15, 2001, Geraldine Fruge and her eight-year-old granddaughter, Hannah Lejeune, were involved in an auto accident on US Highway 171 in Beauregard Parish. Fruge, who was driving southbound, lost control of her Pontiac and veered into oncoming traffic. Tragically, both she and Lejeune were killed when their car struck a Ford pickup truck heading northbound. It had been raining on and off throughout the day and Highway 171 was wet at the time of the crash. The victims’ family brought a wrongful death action against Louisiana’s Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). The plaintiffs alleged that due to the highway’s construction, water was allowed to collect and pond on the roadway. They alleged that this condition amounted to a defect that caused Fruge’s car to hydroplane. After jury returned a verdict in favor of DOTD, the plaintiffs appealed.

The primary duty of Louisiana’s DOTD is to maintain the public roadways in a condition that is reasonably safe and which does not present an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who exercise ordinary care. As discussed in this prior blog post, a plaintiff must prove the following elements in a tort action against DOTD arising from accident on the roadway: (1) that the condition that caused the damage was in DOTD’s control; (2) that the condition amounted to a defect that presented an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) that the DOTD was aware or should have been aware that the defect existed; and (4) that the defect was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Upon review, the Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit began “with the second element: whether Highway 171 contained a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm.”

The court reviewed the record and examined the testimony presented by eyewitnesses, experts, and accident investigators, much of which centered around the ridges or ruts in the travel lane that on the day of the accident held water on the road. The court noted that “it is clear that the jury could not have come to any conclusion other than the fact that the travel ruts on both lanes of Highway 171 were holding some water at the time of the accident. Thus, the pivotal question is whether this retention of water was a defect in the highway that created an unreasonable risk of harm.” After an exhaustive review of matters such as rut depth, roadway gradient, tire tread depth, and the physics of hydroplaning, the jury found that the condition of the road did not present an unreasonable risk of harm. “The issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder’s conclusion was a reasonable one.” Accordingly, the court held that “the evidence in the record provides a reasonable factual basis for the jury to have concluded that Highway 171 was not defective,” and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Doyle, a resident of Eunice, Louisiana, lost his appeal of the summary judgment verdict denying him damages resulting from injuries he received in an automobile-train accident. On March 5, 2009, Doyle finished up an evening of cards with friends and a half pint of whiskey before getting in his car to drive home. While he was crossing the train tracks, a train owned by Union Pacific Railroad Co. collided with his car. When Doyle’s blood alcohol level (BAC) was tested at the hospital, it measured .108% – the legal limit in Louisiana is .08%. A toxicologist testifying for the defense argues that his BAC at the time of the accident would have been well above a level associated with mental and physical impairment. This impairment significantly increased his risk of ending up in a car accident.

As a result of this intoxication, unfortunately Louisiana Statute § 9:2798.4 bars Doyle’s claim. The statute does not permit recovery to a driver if the driver was (a) legally intoxicated, (b) more than twenty-fiver percent negligent, and (c) his or her negligence was a contributing factor in the accident. Many states have similar laws on their books due to the public policy concerns of allowing an intoxicated person to recover for injuries that resulted from his own voluntary intoxication. If someone chose to drive while intoxicated, why should the other party have to pay for the drunk driver’s negligent behavior? However, in order to prevent injustice, most of these laws have a requirement that the intoxicated person’s actions be somewhat negligent and that that negligence be a relevant factor of the accident.

Doyle admitted that he hadn’t looked for the train when he crossed. The crossing was marked with lights and there is evidence that the lights were flashing and the train honked its horn to warn of its approach, despite Doyle’s argument to the contrary. The first responder to the scene, a police officer, testified that the lights were working when he arrived and the event recorder on the train showed the engineer began blowing the horn 25 seconds before the collision. These two signals would have alerted a reasonable person to the train’s proximity. The trial court concluded and the appellate court affirmed that no reasonable juror could come to the conclusion that Doyle was less than 25% negligent in the cause of his own accident due to his intoxicated state and his failure to look properly for an incoming train while crossing the tracks. While the train company could be considered at fault in this case, Doyle was also at fault for driving while impaired under alcohol. Since no reasonable juror could find in Doyle’s favor in this case, summary judgment was appropriate.