Gaynell R. Massey v. Liberty Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Matthew Grayson Baird, and Geico Automobile Insurance Company as uninsured/underinsured Carrier for Massey

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: September 23, 2020
• Docket: 2020-CA-0281
• Status: Published

Opinion

GAYNELL R. MASSEY * NO. 2020-CA-0281

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL LIBERTY MUTUAL * AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE FOURTH CIRCUIT COMPANY, MATTHEW * GRAYSON BAIRD, AND STATE OF LOUISIANA GEICO AUTOMOBILE ******* INSURANCE COMPANY AS UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED CARRIER FOR MASSEY

APPEAL FROM FIRST CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS NO. 2017-07249, SECTION “SECTION B” Honorable Nadine Ramsey, Judge Pro Tem ****** Judge Roland L. Belsome ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Roland L. Belsome)

Brian A. Pena Sean M. Anderson ANDERSON PENA, LLC 4833 Conti Street, Suite 107 New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

W. Briggs Scott Stephen R. Barry BARRY & CO, LLC A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 612 Gravier Street New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AFFIRMED

SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 RLB This appeal is taken from the trial court’s judgment finding in favor of JFM EAL Gaynelle Massey and awarding damages for injuries sustained in a September 24,

2016 automobile accident. For the reasons that follow, the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

On September 24, 2016, Ms. Massey was driving on Laurel Street. Laurel

Street is a one-way street located in New Orleans, Louisiana. As she was driving,

Ms. Massey encountered an abrupt noise that she later realized was her vehicle

being struck by Grayson Baird’s vehicle’s door. Besides the property damage to

Ms. Massey’s vehicle, the accident resulted in her being physically injured. Ms.

Massey treated for those physical injuries for approximately three months.

After a one-day bench trial, the trial court ruled in favor of Ms. Massey and

against defendants, Mr. Baird and GEICO Insurance Company. Ms. Massey was

1 awarded $6,400.00 in general damages, and $3,628.00 in special damages, together

with judicial interest and court costs.1 This suspensive appeal followed.

Assignment of Error

On appeal, Mr. Baird argues that Ms. Massey failed to prove that he was

liable for the damages caused by his passenger’s opening of his vehicle’s door.

More specifically, Mr. Baird maintains that the trial court erred in its application of

La. R.S. 32:141, and instead should have applied La. R.S. 32:283.2 He contends

that the passenger that opened the vehicle door was the liable party.

Analysis

In order to determine whether a plaintiff should prevail on a claim in

negligence, Louisiana courts employ a duty-risk analysis. Perkins v. Entergy

Corp., 00-1372, (La.3/23/01), 782 So.2d 606. The duty-risk analysis uses

five elements to establish negligence. The plaintiff must prove: (1) that the

defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard; (2) that

the defendant's conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard; (3)

that the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's

injuries; (4) that the defendant's substandard conduct was a legal cause of the

1 The parties stipulated to the authenticity of Ms.Massey’s medical records. 2 La. R.S. 32:283 reads:

A. No person shall open any door of a motor vehicle located on a highway without first taking due precaution to ensure that his act shall not interfere with the movement of traffic or endanger any other person or vehicle.

B. No person shall leave open any door of a motor vehicle located on a highway for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

2 plaintiff's injuries; and (5) actual damages. Bonin v. Ferrellgas Inc., 2003-

3024 p. 5 (La.7/2/04), 877 So.2d 89, 94; Perkins v. Entergy Corp, 00-1372

p. 7, 782 So.2d at 611; and Boykin v. La. Transit Co., Inc., 96-1932, pp. 8-9

(La.3/4/98), 707 So.2d 1225, 1230. The threshold issues when applying the

duty-risk analysis is identifying the duty imposed upon the defendant and a

breach of that duty. Boykin, 96-1932 p. 9, 707 So.2d at 1230. These issues

of fact are reviewed on appeal under a manifestly erroneous/ clearly wrong

standard. See Davis v. Witt, 02-3102 (La. 7/2/03), 851 So.2d 1119.

At trial, the court heard the testimony of Ms. Massey and Mr. Baird. Ms.

Massey explained that she was driving east on Laurel Street, a route she took often,

when she heard a loud noise and pulled over concerned she may have hit

something. After pulling over, she noticed some young men outside of a vehicle in

the area she had just passed. Once she spoke with them, Ms. Massey realized that

the rear passenger door of Mr. Baird’s vehicle had been opened as she passed and

it struck her vehicle. She further stated that she had room to drive on Laurel Street

without having to maneuver pass Mr. Baird’s vehicle.

Mr. Baird testified that he pulled over in front of his friend Alonzo Brown’s

house to drop him off. He claimed that there was a vehicle already parked in front

of the house, so he positioned his vehicle alongside of that vehicle. After Mr.

Brown exited from the front passenger seat, another passenger opened the rear

passenger door to exit the vehicle. That is when Ms. Massey’s vehicle was struck.

After hearing the testimony, the trial court ruled in Ms. Massey’s favor and

awarded damages. The trial court found that:

Due to the position of Defendant’s vehicle, when Defendant’s passenger exited the right rear passenger door of the automobile it

3 created a sudden emergency resulting in impact with the driver’s side of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

La. R.S. 32:141(A) provides:

Upon any highway outside of a business or residence district, no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or main traveled part of the highway when it is practicable to stop, park or so leave such vehicle off such part of said highway, but in every event an unobstructed width of the highway opposite a standing vehicle shall be left for the free passage of other vehicles and a clear view of such stopped vehicles shall be available from a distance of two hundred feet in each direction upon such highway.

Applying the facts of the case to the language of La. R.S. 32:141, the trial

court specifically held that Mr. Baird’s conduct resulted in the accident

between his vehicle and Ms. Massey’s vehicle. The statute creates a duty

upon driver’s to park in a manner that does not obstruct the street. Although,

as Ms. Massey testified, there was room for her to pass Mr. Baird’s vehicle

on Laurel Street, being double-parked in the street created a dangerous

condition for his rear passenger to exit the vehicle in oncoming traffic.

Thus, the duty to safely position his vehicle on the street was breached.

Then, the trial court determined that the breach of that duty caused the

accident that resulted in Ms. Massey’s injuries and subsequent treatment.

Here, the trial court determined that Ms. Massey established the

requisite elements to hold Mr. Baird liable for her damages. Based on the

record before this court, we cannot find that the trial court was manifestly

erroneous or clearly wrong in its ruling. Accordingly, the trial court’s

judgment awarding Gaynell Massey $6,400.00 in general damages, and

4 $3,628.00 in special damages, together with judicial interest and court costs

is affirmed.