Isaiah Gaines and Alvin Gaines v. Paul Lemoine, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, and Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 21, 2020
• Docket: 2019CA0551
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2019 CA 0551

ISAIAH GAINES AND ALVIN GAINES

VERSUS

PAUL LEMOINE, ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Judgment Rendered: FEB 2 12020

On Appeal from the Twentieth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of West Feliciana State of Louisiana Docket No. 22514

Honorable Kathryn E. Jones, Judge Presiding

Chad A. Aguillard Counsel for Plaintiffs/ Appellants, New Roads, Louisiana Isaiah Gaines and Alvin Gaines Willie G. Johnson, Jr. Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Christopher W. Stidham Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees, Carey M. Nichols AIIState Property and Casualty Insurance Baton Rouge, Louisiana Company and Paul Lemoine

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY, AND BURRIS, l JJ

I Judge William J. Burris, retired, serving pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

CO cLA 4 1 BURRIS, J.

In this personal injury case, the plaintiffs, Isaiah Gaines and Alvin Gaines,

appeal the trial court's judgment finding Alvin Gaines solely at fault for causing

the subject car accident and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit with prejudice For the

following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 1, 2014, Alvin and his passenger, Isaiah, were involved in an

accident with Paul Lemoine at the intersection of Louisiana Highway 10 and

Highway 61 in West Feliciana Parish. Alvin and Paul were both driving pickup

trucks, and Paul was pulling a five -by -ten trailer with a 150 -pound load.

Immediately before the accident, Alvin was stopped at the red traffic light

on Highway 61 south at its intersection with Highway 10. Paul was stopped in

the turning lane on Highway 61 north, waiting for the turn signal to change to

green so that he could turn left onto Highway 10. Alvin and Paul both contend

that they proceeded through the intersection only after their respective traffic

signal turned green. Alvin and Isaiah subsequently filed this suit against Paul

and his insurer, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, seeking

damages for injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. z

A bench trial was held on October 10, 2017 to determine liability, medical

causation, and damages. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial

court issued written reasons for judgment on October 31, 2017. The trial court

concluded that " it is more probable than not that the plaintiff ran the red light"

and, consequently, ruled in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs,

finding Alvin solely at fault for causing the accident.

The plaintiffs' original appeal to this court was dismissed on December 21,

2018 for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Gaines v. Lemoine, 2018- 0490 ( La. App.

Z Alvin' s UM carrier, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, was also a named as a defendant. The plaintiffs' claims against Mississippi Farm Bureau were subsequently settled, and Mississippi Farm Bureau was dismissed by an order signed on November 29, 2017. 2 1st Cir. 12/ 21/ 18) 2018 WL 6722352 ( unpublished). Following remand, a final

judgment was signed on February 21, 2019, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit with

prejudice. From this judgment, the plaintiffs instituted the subject appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in finding that Alvin ran a red

light and in assigning him with 100% fault for causing the accident. The

plaintiffs further assert that the trial court erred by finding that Paul, who was

making a left turn across the plaintiffs' lane of travel, was not at fault for causing

the accident. Although not specifically assigned as error, the plaintiffs assert that

in the very least," the trial court erred by failing to apply a comparative fault

analysis.

APPLICABLE LAW

Standard of Review

When reviewing factual findings made by the trier of fact, including the

allocation of fault, this court is required to apply the manifest error standard of

review. See Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and

Development, 617 So. 2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993). See also Pinn v. Pennison,

2016- 0614 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 22/ 18), 209 So. 3d 844, 847, citin

Schexnayder v. Bridges, 2015- 0786 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 26/ 16), 190 So. 3d

764, 773. Under the manifest error standard, which demands that great

deference be given to the trial court's factual findings, the issue to be resolved

on appeal is not whether the trial court was right or wrong, but whether its

conclusions are reasonable. Adams v. Rhodia, Inc., 2007- 2110 ( La. 5/ 21/ 08),

983 So. 2d 798, 806, citin Stobart, 617 So. 2d at 882; Pinn, 209 So. 3d at 848,

citin Schexnayder, 190 So. 3d at 774. If the factual findings are reasonable in

light of the record reviewed in its entirety, a reviewing court may not reverse

even though convinced that, had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have

3 weighed the evidence differently. Adams, 983 So. 2d at 806, gWng Stobart, 617

So. 2d at 882- 3.

This is especially true when the trial court's factual findings are based on

witness credibility; for only the fact finder can be aware of the variations in

demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding

and belief in what is said. Pinn, 209 So. 3d at 847, OtLng Schexnayder, 190

So. 3d at 773. Thus, a factfinder's conclusions, based on its decision to credit the

testimony of one of two or more witnesses, can virtually never be manifestly

erroneous. Adams, 983 So. 2d at 807, cion Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840,

845 ( La. 1989). Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the

factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. Pinn, 209

So. 3d at 847, cion Schexnayder, 190 So. 3d at 773. See also Jones v.

Bravata, 2018- 0837 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 9/ 19), 280 So. 3d 226, 233. Further, in

reaching its conclusions, the trier of fact need not accept all of the testimony of

any witness as being true or false and may believe and accept a part or parts of

a witness' s testimony and refuse to accept other parts. Pontchartrain Natural

Gas System v. Texas Brine Co., LLC, 2018- 0631 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 7/ 3/ 19),

281 So. 3d 1, 9, writ denied, 2019- 01423 ( La. 11/ 12/ 19), cion Holmes v.

Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co., 422 So. 2d 1200, 1203- 04 ( La. App. 1st Cir.

1982), writ denied, 429 So. 2d 133 ( La. 1983).

These rules apply equally to the evaluation of expert testimony. Adams,

983 So. 2d at 807, gMDg Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern Railroad, 2000-

2628 ( La. 4/ 3/ 01), 786 So. 2d 682, 693. The opinions of expert witnesses are

not binding on the trial court and are to be weighed the same as any other

evidence. Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, 281 So. 3d at 9 citing Holmes,

422 So. 2d at 1204.

4 Left -Turning Motorist

It is undisputed that Paul was making a left turn when the accident

occurred. A left turn is a dangerous maneuver, and a driver has a duty not to

attempt the turn until he ascertains it can be completed safely. Pourciau v.

Melville, 2018- 0385 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 21/ 18) 2018 WL 4520283, * 2

unpublished). Louisiana Revised Statute 32: 122 provides:

The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard.

Further, vehicular traffic facing a green arrow signal may cautiously enter

the intersection to make the movement indicated by such arrow, but shall stop

and yield the right-of-way to other traffic lawfully using the intersection. La. R. S.

32: 232( 1)( b). Once it has been established that a motorist was attempting to

make a left turn when an accident occurred, the burden of proof shifts to the

left -turning motorist to absolve himself of liability. Pourciau, 2018 WL 4520283

at * 2. This burden remains despite the existence of a left -turn signal at the

intersection in question, but the burden may be discharged by proof that the

green arrow signal was illuminated. Id., gWng Hampton v. Marino, 97- 1345

La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 6/ 98), 725 So. 2d 503, 509. Nevertheless, a left -turning

motorist is required to exercise a very high degree of care, even where the

motorist executes his turn on the authority of an illuminated left -turn signal.

Pourciau, 2018 WL 4520283 at * 2, citing Tipton v. Menard, 467 So. 2d 126,

128 ( La. App. 3rd Cir. 1985).

Trac Control Signals

Alvin' s lane of travel was controlled by a circular traffic signal, which he

maintains was green when he proceeded through the intersection. Louisiana

Revised Statute 32: 232 relevantly provides that vehicular traffic facing a circular

green signal may proceed straight through, but shall stop and yield the right -of -

5 way to other vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time such signal is

exhibited. La. R. S. 32: 232( 1)( a). A motorist approaching an intersection who is

favored with a green light cannot depend exclusively on a favorable light, but

has a duty to watch for vehicles already in the intersection when the light

changed; however, this duty does not extend to looking for approaching traffic

that has not yet entered the intersection. Pourciau, 2018 WL 4520283 at * 2,

citin Hampton, 725 So. 2d at 509.

ANALYSIS

Paul testified that he stopped at the red light in the left turn lane on

Highway 61 north and waited for the turn signal to change to green. Paul

confirmed that the arrow was " definitely green" when he proceeded ' very

slowly" and began to turn left, heading toward Highway 10. According to Paul,

his truck was "" broadsided" by the plaintiffs as he crossed Highway 61. He

denied seeing Alvin' s truck approaching on Highway 61 south and believes Alvin

ran the red light.

Both Isaiah and Alvin testified that Alvin stopped at the red light at the

intersection of Highway 61 south and Highway 10, intending to continue straight

to Baton Rouge. According to the plaintiffs, Alvin proceeded through the

intersection when the light turned green. As he did, the front driver' s side of

Alvin' s truck collided with the front of Paul' s truck. Alvin denied seeing Paul

enter the intersection and testified that, in his opinion, Paul ran the red light.

Finally, the trial court heard testimony from Edward K. Carrick, P. E., the

plaintiffs' expert in accident reconstruction. Mr. Carrick explained that, if Paul' s

testimony is accepted, it is more probable than not that he began to make the

left turn after the traffic light ( arrow) turned green, but he failed to clear the

intersection with his truck and trailer before Alvin"s traffic signal turned green.

Conversely, Mr. Carrick stated that if Paul' s testimony is disregarded, then a

lAvery, very similar incident would have occurred" if Paul '" rolled up" to the 6 intersection and tried to " get through the light" without coming to a complete

stop. In this hypothetical, proposed only by Mr. Carrick, Paul was " coasting

through" the intersection in an attempt to " beat a red signal."

The trial court clearly accepted Paul' s testimony and, therefore, considered

the plaintiffs' theory that Paul turned on a green arrow but failed to timely clear

the intersection. In its written reasons for judgment, the trial court identified the

plaintiffs' theory of the case as follows:

The plaintiffs' theory of the case is that the defendant proceeded through the intersection at such a slow speed or with such delay that his green turn signal turned yellow while he was still in the intersection and the plaintiffs' [ sic] had a green light.

On appeal, the plaintiffs do not assert that the trial court was incorrect in

this regard. Instead, they disagree with the trial court' s interpretation of the

evidence and conclusions drawn therefrom. Although the plaintiffs correctly

argue that no evidence affirmatively establishes that Alvin disregarded a red

traffic signal, a finding that Paul had a green light necessarily means Alvin did

not. As Mr. Carrick explained, the lights at this intersection are actuated and

sequence " back and forth," meaning that, since Paul and Alvin were the only two

vehicles at this intersection, when one had a green light, the other had a red

light.

As the trial court noted, the photographs admitted into evidence show that

Alvin' s truck collided with the front passenger side of Paul' s truck. Paul

confirmed the damage to his truck was isolated to the front passenger side, near

the headlight, fender, and tire. Based on its interpretation of the objective

photographic evidence, as well as witness testimony, the trial court concluded:

If the defendant had been slowly through the traveling so intersection that the light turned yellow, the plaintiffs' vehicle would have struck the rear portion of the defendant's vehicle, or the trailer; not the front fender if the plaintiff in fact had a green light.

The trial court also considered Mr. Carrick' s testimony that if Paul was

turning left slowly at five miles per hour, as he testified, it would have taken him approximately fourteen seconds to clear the intersection. Mr. Carrick further

explained that the traffic signal inventory report, which was admitted into

evidence, establishes that the arrow governing Paul' s lane was green for six

seconds and yellow for five seconds. There was also a " red clearance" of 1. 8

seconds, when all lights at the intersection were red. Thus, according to this

light sequence, Paul had 12. 8 seconds to clear the intersection before Alvin' s

light turned green.

Paul testified that he slowly began to accelerate as soon as the red arrow

changed to green. Mr. Carrick explained that, if Paul waited two seconds to

accelerate after the arrow changed to green, as is expected based on human

perception and reaction time, he would have arrived at the point of impact within

8. 4 seconds, while his light was still yellow. Conversely, then, Alvin' s light would

have been red. Alvin confirmed that Paul' s truck did not clear the intersection,

and trial testimony established that, after impact, both trucks remained in the

travel lanes of Highway 61 south. Considering this, the trial court concluded:

Even if the turn signal changed to yellow while the defendant was in the intersection, the five -second yellow turn signal plus the 1. 8 seconds of red clearance would have given the defendant enough time to travel further through the intersection than the location where the collision occurred.

The undisputed fact that the collision occurred in the

southbound travel lanes of US Highway 61 plus the fact that the point of impact was the front fender of the defendant' s truck clearly establishes that if the defendant' s light turned yellow while he was in the process of turning, as was asserted by the plaintiffs, then it is more probable than not that the plaintiff ran the red light.

After examining the record in its entirety, we cannot say that the trial

court's factual findings were manifestly erroneous. As Mr. Carrick recognized,

the testimony provided by Paul and Alvin ' just don' t match, so we' re not sure

exactly --." He acknowledged that the physical evidence would be the same

regardless of which driver ran the red light. Mr. Carrick admittedly made

inferences and weighed evidence to arrive at a conclusion that it is more likely

3 than not that Paul ran a red light. Similarly, the trial court was required to weigh

evidence and assess witness credibility and was not bound to accept all of Mr.

Carrick's testimony, particularly his opinion concerning liability. The trier of fact

chose one of two permissible views of the evidence — a choice that cannot be

manifestly erroneous. 3 See Pinn, 209 So. 3d at 847, citing Rosell, 549 So. 2d at

We also reject the plaintiffs' assertion that the trial court failed to apply the

law concerning left -turning motorists and comparative fault. The trial court

accepted Paul' s testimony — and the plaintiffs' theory of the case — that Paul had

a green light when he entered the intersection to make a left turn, thus,

discharging Paul' s burden of proving that the green arrow signal was illuminated.

See Pourciau, 2018 WL 4520283 at * 2, citin Hampton, 725 So. 2d at 509.

Paul' s uncontradicted testimony also established that he exercised caution as he

began making the turn and advanced slowly when the arrow turned green. Paul

explained that he took a " sweeping look" through the intersection, observed no

traffic approaching from Highway 61 south, then shifted his focus to the path in

front of him as he approached Highway 10. We cannot say the trial court erred

in finding that Paul acted reasonably and with the requisite degree of care. See

Pourciau, 2018 WL 4520283 at * 2, gtM Tipton, 467 So. 2d at 128.

Finally, the trial court's judgment must be affirmed, even if this court were

to accept the plaintiffs' theory that Paul' s arrow was green when he began to

turn, but he failed to clear the intersection before Alvin' s light turned green. It is

well settled that the driver of a vehicle who has stopped for a red light will be

held to be at fault if he starts forward immediately when the light turns to green

and collides with a car that has not timely cleared the intersection. See La. R. S.

32: 232( 1)( a); Cavalier v. State Farm Ins. Co., 224 So. 2d 22, 25 ( La. App 1st

3 The plaintiffs assert that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Alvin ran a red light; however, as noted, manifest error is the appropriate standard of review of the trial court's factual determination.

9 Cir. 1969). A motorist must not enter an intersection after a red light turns to

green until sufficient time is allowed for cross traffic, already in the intersection,

to clear. Earles v. Volentine, 191 So. 2d 740, 743 ( La. App. 2d Cir.), writ

refused, 250 La. 21, 193 So. 2d 529 ( 1967). See also Pourciau, 2018 WL

4520283 at * 2, c1 Hampton, 725 So. 2d at 509. Therefore, we find no merit

in the plaintiffs' arguments.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's February 21, 2019 judgment is

affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiffs/ appellants, Isaiah

Gaines and Alvin Gaines.

AFFIRMED.