NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2020 CA 1085
WILLIE MITCHELL
VERSUS
LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, ETHAN LEE, AND HAYDEN LEE
Judgment Rendered: ' APR 1 6 2021
On Appeal from the Twenty -First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Docket No. 2016- 0002743
Honorable Charlotte H. Foster, Judge Presiding
Lawrence Blake Jones Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant David C. Whitmore Willie Mitchell New Orleans, LA
Craig J. Robichaux Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees Rachael P. Catalanotto Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Mandeville, LA Insurance Company and Hayden Ethan Lee
BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ. McCLENDON, J.
In this personal injury case, the plaintiff appeals a trial court's judgment in
favor of the defendants, dismissing her claims against them. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 12, 2016, the plaintiff, Willie Mitchell, filed a Petition for
Damages, alleging that she suffered personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident
that occurred in Tangipahoa Parish on October 15, 2015. Ms. Mitchell named as
defendants, Hayden Ethan Lee and his insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty
Insurance Company.' Following a bench trial, the trial court took the matter under
advisement and, on May 28, 2020, issued Reasons for Judgment, finding that Ms.
Mitchell failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Lee was at
fault in causing the accident. On June 15, 2020, the trial court signed a judgment
in favor of the defendants, dismissing Ms. Mitchell' s claims against them with
prejudice. Thereafter, Ms. Mitchell appealed, asserting that the trial court's
judgment was manifestly erroneous and clearly wrong.
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 through Dept. of Transp. and Development,
617 So. 2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993). 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., 07- 2110
La. 5/ 21/ 08), 983 So. 2d 798, 806. 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
weighed the evidence differently. Adams, 983 So. 2d at 806.
1 Mr. Lee' s father, Hayden Lee, was also named as a defendant, but he was subsequently dismissed from the suit. Additionally, Ms. Mitchell filed an amended petition to correct the name of Mr. Lee. 2 This is especially true when the trial court's factual findings are based on
witness credibility; for only the factfinder 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. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840, 844 ( La. 1989);
Schexnayder v. Bridges, 15- 0786 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 26/ 16), 190 So. 3d 764, 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.
Rosell, 549 So. 2d at 845; Adams, 983 So. 2d at 807. Accordingly, where there
are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder' s choice between them
cannot be manifestly erroneous. Rosell, 549 So. 2d at 844; Schexnayder, 190
So. 3d at 773.
Further, in reaching its conclusions, the trier of fact is free to accept or
reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. Pennison v. Carroll,
14- 1098 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 24/ 15), 167 So. 3d 1065, 1076, writ denied, 15- 1214 ( La.
9/ 25/ 15), 178 So. 3d 568. Where there is conflicting testimony about factual
matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility
of the witnesses, reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed on appeal.
Scoggins v. Frederick, 98- 1814 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 24/ 99), 744 So. 2d 676, 687,
writ denied, 99- 3557 ( La. 3/ 17/ 00), 756 So. 2d 1141.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Mitchell' s claims in this case are based upon Mr. Lee' s alleged
negligence. Louisiana courts have adopted a duty -risk analysis in determining
whether liability exists under the facts of a particular case. Brewer v. J. B. Hunt
Transport, Inc., 09- 1408 ( La. 3/ 16/ 10), 35 So. 3d 230, 240. In order for liability
to attach under the duty -risk analysis, the plaintiff must prove the following
separate elements: ( 1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a
specific standard; ( 2) the defendant failed to conform his conduct to the
appropriate standard; ( 3) the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause -in -
fact of the plaintiff's injuries; ( 4) the defendant' s substandard conduct was a legal
cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and ( 5) actual damages. Id. A negative answer
3 to any of the elements of the duty -risk analysis prompts a no -liability
determination. 7enkins v. Hernandez, 19- 0874 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 3/ 20), 305
So. 3d 365, 371, writ denied, 20- 00835 ( La. 10/ 20/ 20), 303 So. 3d 315. In an action
to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by another's negligence, the
plaintiff has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant by a
preponderance of the evidence. Hanks v. Entergy Corp., 06- 477 ( La.
12/ 18/ 06), 944 So. 2d 564, 578.
Ms. Mitchell, who was seventy -nine -years -old at the time of the trial,
testified that she was driving her 2001 Saturn XT on West Oak Street in Amite
when she was involved in a hit-and- run accident with a pickup truck pulling a
trailer. Ms. Mitchell stated that she had exited from a bank parking lot, turning
left into the center lane of Oak Street to go to Interstate 55, when the truck and
trailer came into her lane, and the trailer collided with her vehicle. Ms. Mitchell
testified that the trailer hit her front wheel on the passenger side and flipped over
her car.2 She stated that the truck did not stop, and she had to chase it onto the
interstate to obtain the vehicle license plate number. The police were not called
to the accident scene. However, Ms. Mitchell went to the Amite Police Department
a few hours later and reported the incident and provided the license plate
information.
Myrtle Brumfield, who was Ms. Mitchell' s sitter and a passenger in Ms.
Mitchell' s vehicle at the time of the accident, testified in her deposition that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2020 CA 1085
WILLIE MITCHELL
VERSUS
LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, ETHAN LEE, AND HAYDEN LEE
Judgment Rendered: ' APR 1 6 2021
On Appeal from the Twenty -First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana Docket No. 2016- 0002743
Honorable Charlotte H. Foster, Judge Presiding
Lawrence Blake Jones Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant David C. Whitmore Willie Mitchell New Orleans, LA
Craig J. Robichaux Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees Rachael P. Catalanotto Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Mandeville, LA Insurance Company and Hayden Ethan Lee
BEFORE: GUIDRY, McCLENDON, AND LANIER, JJ. McCLENDON, J.
In this personal injury case, the plaintiff appeals a trial court's judgment in
favor of the defendants, dismissing her claims against them. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 12, 2016, the plaintiff, Willie Mitchell, filed a Petition for
Damages, alleging that she suffered personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident
that occurred in Tangipahoa Parish on October 15, 2015. Ms. Mitchell named as
defendants, Hayden Ethan Lee and his insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty
Insurance Company.' Following a bench trial, the trial court took the matter under
advisement and, on May 28, 2020, issued Reasons for Judgment, finding that Ms.
Mitchell failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Lee was at
fault in causing the accident. On June 15, 2020, the trial court signed a judgment
in favor of the defendants, dismissing Ms. Mitchell' s claims against them with
prejudice. Thereafter, Ms. Mitchell appealed, asserting that the trial court's
judgment was manifestly erroneous and clearly wrong.
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 through Dept. of Transp. and Development,
617 So. 2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993). 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., 07- 2110
La. 5/ 21/ 08), 983 So. 2d 798, 806. 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
weighed the evidence differently. Adams, 983 So. 2d at 806.
1 Mr. Lee' s father, Hayden Lee, was also named as a defendant, but he was subsequently dismissed from the suit. Additionally, Ms. Mitchell filed an amended petition to correct the name of Mr. Lee. 2 This is especially true when the trial court's factual findings are based on
witness credibility; for only the factfinder 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. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840, 844 ( La. 1989);
Schexnayder v. Bridges, 15- 0786 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 26/ 16), 190 So. 3d 764, 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.
Rosell, 549 So. 2d at 845; Adams, 983 So. 2d at 807. Accordingly, where there
are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder' s choice between them
cannot be manifestly erroneous. Rosell, 549 So. 2d at 844; Schexnayder, 190
So. 3d at 773.
Further, in reaching its conclusions, the trier of fact is free to accept or
reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. Pennison v. Carroll,
14- 1098 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 24/ 15), 167 So. 3d 1065, 1076, writ denied, 15- 1214 ( La.
9/ 25/ 15), 178 So. 3d 568. Where there is conflicting testimony about factual
matters, the resolution of which depends upon a determination of the credibility
of the witnesses, reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed on appeal.
Scoggins v. Frederick, 98- 1814 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 24/ 99), 744 So. 2d 676, 687,
writ denied, 99- 3557 ( La. 3/ 17/ 00), 756 So. 2d 1141.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Mitchell' s claims in this case are based upon Mr. Lee' s alleged
negligence. Louisiana courts have adopted a duty -risk analysis in determining
whether liability exists under the facts of a particular case. Brewer v. J. B. Hunt
Transport, Inc., 09- 1408 ( La. 3/ 16/ 10), 35 So. 3d 230, 240. In order for liability
to attach under the duty -risk analysis, the plaintiff must prove the following
separate elements: ( 1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a
specific standard; ( 2) the defendant failed to conform his conduct to the
appropriate standard; ( 3) the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause -in -
fact of the plaintiff's injuries; ( 4) the defendant' s substandard conduct was a legal
cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and ( 5) actual damages. Id. A negative answer
3 to any of the elements of the duty -risk analysis prompts a no -liability
determination. 7enkins v. Hernandez, 19- 0874 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 3/ 20), 305
So. 3d 365, 371, writ denied, 20- 00835 ( La. 10/ 20/ 20), 303 So. 3d 315. In an action
to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by another's negligence, the
plaintiff has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant by a
preponderance of the evidence. Hanks v. Entergy Corp., 06- 477 ( La.
12/ 18/ 06), 944 So. 2d 564, 578.
Ms. Mitchell, who was seventy -nine -years -old at the time of the trial,
testified that she was driving her 2001 Saturn XT on West Oak Street in Amite
when she was involved in a hit-and- run accident with a pickup truck pulling a
trailer. Ms. Mitchell stated that she had exited from a bank parking lot, turning
left into the center lane of Oak Street to go to Interstate 55, when the truck and
trailer came into her lane, and the trailer collided with her vehicle. Ms. Mitchell
testified that the trailer hit her front wheel on the passenger side and flipped over
her car.2 She stated that the truck did not stop, and she had to chase it onto the
interstate to obtain the vehicle license plate number. The police were not called
to the accident scene. However, Ms. Mitchell went to the Amite Police Department
a few hours later and reported the incident and provided the license plate
information.
Myrtle Brumfield, who was Ms. Mitchell' s sitter and a passenger in Ms.
Mitchell' s vehicle at the time of the accident, testified in her deposition that
something hit them, which " shook the car." Ms. Brumfield also testified, in contrast
to Ms. Mitchell, that nothing went on top of Ms. Mitchell' s car.
Mr. Lee testified that he was traveling in his 2005 Dodge pickup truck in the
left lane of Highway 16 heading towards the interstate and pulling a thirty -foot -
long trailer loaded with horses. He stated that he was aware of the car in the
turning lane that appeared to be trying to merge into traffic and passed it. Mr.
Lee stated that to his knowledge, he had no contact with Ms. Mitchell' s vehicle.
z Photographs of Ms. Mitchell' s vehicle introduced at trial show some minor damage to the front passenger -side of her vehicle. However, these photos were taken on May 9, 2018, two and a half years after the accident and subsequent to Ms. Mitchell' s deposition in this matter.
51 However, he testified that he " did see the front of the vehicle go down like she
was braking hard." Mr. Lee further stated that he saw the vehicle catch up next
to him and pass him, which led him to believe that no damage occurred. 3
In its Reasons for Judgment, the trial court made the following factual
findings, stating:
On October 15, 2015, Ms. Willie Mitchell and Mr. Hayden Ethan Lee were involved in a traffic collision on West Oak Street in Amite, Louisiana. At trial, Ms. Mitchell testified and the Court heard evidence of several inconsistent statements given by Ms. Mitchell regarding the collision. The Court finds that Ms. Mitchell' s trial testimony and none of the statements given by Ms. Mitchell are corroborated by the very limited physical evidence submitted at trial. Because of these inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, the Court finds that Ms. Mitchell, although a very nice elderly lady, was simply not credible. On the other hand, Mr. Hayden Ethan Lee' s trial testimony was consistent with the very limited physical evidence submitted at trial.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the plaintiff, Ms. Willie Mitchell did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Hayden Ethan Lee was at fault in causing the accident.
We have carefully considered the evidence in the record, and we cannot
say that the findings of the trial court are manifestly erroneous. Ms. Mitchell gave
different versions of the incident in question. At the police station, she reported
that she was driving in the left-hand travel lane and that the truck merged into
her lane of travel. In her petition and discovery responses, Ms. Mitchell averred
that she was in the right lane. At trial, she testified that she was in the central
lane or, what she called the neutral lane. Ms. Mitchell also reported to the police
that the accident occurred at 9: 00 a. m., but in her petition and discovery responses
4 stated that the time was approximately 11: 00 a. m. Additionally, Ms. Mitchell
testified at trial that, besides Ms. Brumfield, her niece and niece's child were in the
vehicle at the time of the accident. In her deposition, Ms. Mitchell stated that only
Ms. Brumfield was in the car and that her niece was in the bank when the accident
3 Mr. Lee also testified that when he reached his destination, " just out of curiosity," he checked on his trailer and there was no damage indicating that he hit anyone.
4 Ms. Mitchell testified at trial that her version of the incident given to the officer at the police station was inaccurate, as were her discovery responses. 5 occurred. Ms. Brumfield additionally testified that Ms. Mitchell' s niece and her
niece' s friend were in the back seat.
The trial court weighed the evidence and assessed the witnesses' credibility.
As the trier of fact, the trial court was free to accept or reject the testimony of any
witness and chose one of two permissible views of the evidence. Based on the
record before us, we cannot say that the trial court was manifestly erroneous or
clearly wrong.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the June 15, 2020 judgment is affirmed. All
costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff, Willie Mitchell.
AFFIRMED.