Holloway v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANS.

555 So. 2d 1341, 1990 WL 8534
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedFebruary 5, 1990
Docket89-C-1276, 89-C-1304, 89-C-1310
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 555 So. 2d 1341 (Holloway v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANS.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Holloway v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANS., 555 So. 2d 1341, 1990 WL 8534 (La. 1990).

Opinion

555 So.2d 1341 (1990)

Clark HOLLOWAY
v.
STATE of Louisiana through DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
Charles R. FACUNDUS
v.
STATE of Louisiana through DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

Nos. 89-C-1276, 89-C-1304, 89-C-1310.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 5, 1990.
Rehearing Denied March 8, 1990.

*1342 William J. Guste, Atty. Gen., Lawrence Durant, for applicant in No. 89-C-1276.

Oscar Schoenfelt, III, Edward Walters, Jr., Moore & Walters, John Dugas, for respondent in No. 89-C-1276.

John Dugas, for applicant in No. 89-C-1304.

William J. Guste, Atty. Gen., Oscar Shoenfelt, III, Edward Walters, Jr., Moore & Walters, Lawrence Durant, for respondent in No. 89-C-1304.

Edward Walters, Jr., Oscar Shoenfelt, III, Moore & Walters, for applicant in No. 89-C-1310.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Lawrence Durant, John Dugas, for respondent in No. 89-C-1310.

MARCUS, Justice.

Charles R. Facundus and Clark Holloway filed separate suits against the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), to recover damages for injuries sustained by them in a one-vehicle accident. Wausau Insurance Company, the worker's compensation insurer, intervened in each suit seeking reimbursement of benefits and medical expenses paid by it to Facundus and Holloway. The suits were consolidated for trial.

The accident was reported at 6:04 P.M. on May 21, 1984. Facundus, who was driving, and Holloway,[1] his passenger, were travelling southbound on Louisiana High-way 37 (Greenwell Springs Road) in East Baton Rouge Parish. Facundus was driving a tractor trailer used for hauling heavy equipment.[2] The trailer was not loaded. Facundus testified that he was travelling at approximately forty miles per hour (mph) and was coming out of a right hand curve when he felt the right front tire of the cab leave the pavement. He took his foot off the accelerator and tried to steer the truck back onto the roadway. He next felt the right rear tire of the cab and then the trailer tires leave the pavement. He locked the brakes but could not stop. He then lost consciousness. The truck travelled 270 feet before the right front top corner of the cab hit a twenty-inch pine tree located just beyond the back slope of the ditch. The truck went another eighty-one feet, hitting a second tree, before coming to a stop in the ditch. Both Facundus and Holloway sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident.

After trial, the judge concluded that the primary cause of the accident was Facundus' negligence in driving off the road, but that some responsibility must lie with DOTD. He found Facundus sixty percent at fault and DOTD forty percent at fault. Judgment was rendered in favor of Facundus and against DOTD for a total of $160,113.47, to be reduced by his percentage of fault. Judgment was also rendered in favor of Holloway and against DOTD for a total of $165,953.55. The trial judge further rendered judgment in favor of Wausau and against Facundus in the amount of $14,673.00 (representing Wausau's award reduced by sixty percent) and against Holloway in the amount of $61,968.16. All parties appealed. The court of appeal, sitting in a panel of five judges, amended in part increasing Holloway's award by $57,305.96 to a total of $223,259.51 and, as amended, affirmed with two judges dissenting.[3] Upon all parties' applications to this *1343 court, we granted certiorari to determine the correctness of that decision.[4]

The issues presented are the (1) apportionment of fault, (2) adequacy of Holloway's award, and (3) reduction of Wausau's recovery against Facundus by sixty percent.

Plaintiffs contend that DOTD's negligence in failing to properly maintain Greenwell Springs Road, particularly the shoulder, was the sole cause of the accident. Therefore, liability hinges on La.Civ. Code art. 2315.[5] Liability under art. 2315 depends on whether the defendant has breached his duty to the plaintiff. DOTD's duty to travelers is to keep the state's roadways and their shoulders in a reasonably safe condition.[6]Manasco v. Poplus, 530 So.2d 548 (La.1988). Whether DOTD breached this duty, i.e., whether the roadway and shoulder at the scene of the accident were in an unreasonably dangerous condition, will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Manasco, supra; Myers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 493 So.2d 1170 (La.1986).

At the scene of the accident, Greenwell Springs Road is a two-lane undivided highway. This portion of the road is classified as a rural major collector route.[7] La.R.S. 48:191. The lanes are paved with asphalt and are twelve feet wide with one-to-two-foot shoulders. The shoulders consist of a mixture of shells and sand or clay with infrequent grassy areas. The roadside ditch has a fore slope of four to one meaning it slopes one unit for every four horizontal units. The ditch is thirty-four inches deep and has a back slope. The first tree which the Facundus vehicle hit was thirteen feet from the edge of the roadway. The speed limit was forty-five mph. The construction date of the highway is unrecorded. DOTD's first record of the road dates back to 1927 when the roadway was gravel. The lanes were later paved and, in 1958, were widened to ten feet. In 1976, the lanes were widened to the present twelve feet with striping at the eleven-foot mark. The project in 1976 included an overlay of the asphalt surface. William Hickey, a road design engineer with DOTD, testified that the plans called for a variable one foot minimum shoulder to start level with the pavement and then to gradually slope for drainage purposes.

Facundus testified that the initial drop from the asphalt to the shoulder felt "pretty severe." He stated that he rode on the shoulder for eighty feet trying to get his truck back onto the roadway until he reached a point where there was no shoulder and the truck went down into the ditch. However, Facundus later testified that he did not ride on the shoulder while trying to regain the roadway, but gradually went off into the ditch. He said that nothing was in the roadway to make him swerve and that he was familiar with the road because he had driven it several times. Facundus and his brother, who also testified, went to the scene two to three weeks after the accident. Based on this visit, Facundus said that, in general, the shoulder was in extremely bad condition and sharp drop-offs existed from the pavement to the shoulder. He testified that he found drop-offs of six to seven inches. His brother testified to drop-offs of three to four inches. Holloway testified that he remembered rounding the curve and that the truck quickly went *1344 into "a terrible lean" after the first tire left the pavement. The last thing he remembered was seeing a pine tree getting closer. Danny Hart, a state trooper who was at the scene immediately after the accident, testified that the tracks left by the truck went straight into the ditch. He saw no evidence that Facundus rode on the shoulder trying to regain the roadway. When asked to describe the scene, Trooper Hart said that the truck ran off the roadway into the ditch going farther and farther to the right until the vehicle struck the first tree. He further testified that this was a normal one-vehicle-off-roadway accident. The weather was clear, it was daylight, and the asphalt was properly striped.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fuselier v. City of Oakdale
130 So. 3d 984 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014)
Kelli Fuselier v. City of Oakdale
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2014
Forbes v. Cockerham
985 So. 2d 86 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)
Capone v. Ormet Corp.
822 So. 2d 684 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2002)
Petre v. State Ex Rel. DOTD
817 So. 2d 1107 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2002)
Cormier v. Comeaux
748 So. 2d 1123 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1999)
Dufrene v. Willingham
721 So. 2d 1026 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1998)
Aucoin v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Dev.
712 So. 2d 62 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1998)
Miller v. Bailey
621 So. 2d 1174 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
Cay v. State, Department of Transportation & Development
614 So. 2d 1293 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Smith
609 So. 2d 809 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1992)
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith
609 So. 2d 809 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1992)
Hanchey v. STATE, DOTD
597 So. 2d 1252 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
Thomas v. Petrolane Gas Service Ltd.
588 So. 2d 711 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Roberts v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development
576 So. 2d 85 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Roberts v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP.
576 So. 2d 85 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1991)
Deville v. La. Department of Transportation & Development
559 So. 2d 916 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
555 So. 2d 1341, 1990 WL 8534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-state-dept-of-trans-la-1990.