# Supreme Court of Louisiana

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #021

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 8th day of May, 2019 , are as follows:

PER CURIAM :

2018

- C

- 0991 ROBERT G. MURPHY AND PAMELA MURPHY v. SHAUNTAL SAVANNAH; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A.K.A. STATE FARM; STATE OF LOUISIANA, TH ROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT (Parish of Caddo)

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed. The judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the State of Louisiana through t he Department of Transportation and Development and dismissing the claims of Robert G. Murphy and Pamela Murphy with prejudice is hereby reinstated. REVERSED.

JOHNSON, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.

CRICHTON, J., dissents for the reasons assigned b y Justice
Genovese.

GENOVESE, J., dissents and assigns reasons.0 5 / 0 8 / 1 9

SUPREM E COURT OF LOUISIANA

No

. 2 0 1 8-C-0 9 9 1

ROBERT G. M URPHY AND PAM ELA M URPHY

VERSUS

SHAUNTAL SAVANNAH; STATE FARM M U TUAL AUTOM OBILE INSURANCE COM PANY, A.K.A. STATE FARM ; STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE DEPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPM ENT

ON W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF CADDO

PER CURI AM

In t h i s cas e, we are cal l ed u p o n t o d eci d e wh et h er t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt erred in

g ran t i n g s u m

m ary ju d g m en t in fav o r o f d efen d an t o n t h e gro u nd t h at p l ai n t i ff fai l ed

t o es t ab l i s h an y g en u i n e i ss u es o f m at eri al fact reg ard i n g w h et h er t he i n t ers ect i o n at

i s su e was u n reas o n ab l y d an gero u s

. Fi n d i n g n o erro r i n t h e ru l i n g o f t he d i s t ri ct co u rt
,

we no w rev ers e t h e ju d g m en t o f t h e co urt o f a p p eal an d rei n s tat e t h e s u m m ary

ju d g m en t

.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HI STORY

Ro b ert M u rp h y w as op erat i n g h i s m o t o rcy cl e o n a t wo -l an e s t ret ch o f

Lo u is i an a Hi g h way 53 8

, k n o w n as Ol d M o o ri ng s po rt Ro ad

, wh i ch ru n s i n a n o rt h

s o u t h d i rect i o n . M r. M u rp h y was p ro ceed i n g o n s ou t herl y d i rect i o n

.

At t h e s a m e t i m e, Sh au n t al Sav an n ah was d ri v i n g h er Ni s s an Max im a i n t h e

n o rt h b o un d l an e o f O l d M o o ri n g s p o r t Ro ad

. As M s

. Sav an n ah ap p ro ach ed t h e

i n t ers ect i o n o f O ld M o o ri n g s p o rt Ro ad an d Rav en s dal e Dri v e, s h e p u l l ed i n t o t h e

s o u t h b o u n d l an e w i t h t h e i nt en t t o t u rn o n t o Rav en s d al e Dri ve. As s h e d i d s o , s h een t ered Mr. M u rp h y ’ s l an e of t rav el

. M r. M urp h y ’ s m o to rcy cl e s t ru ck t h e p as s en g ers i de d o o r o f M s . Sav an n ah ’ s v eh i cl e, cau s i n g i n ju ry t o M r. M u rp h y

.

Th ereaft er , M r. M u rp h y an d h i s wi fe (h erei n aft er referred t o as “ p lai n t i ffs ”)

f i l e d t h e i n st an t su i t ag ai n s t th e St at e o f Lo u i s i an a t h ro u g h t h e Dep art m en t o f

Dev el o pm en t an d Tran s po rt at i o n (“ DOTD”). 1 Pl ai n ti ffs al le g e d D O T D f a ile d to w a r

n

o f a d an g ero u s co n d i t i o n an d fai l ed t o rem ed y t h e d efect iv e d es i g n o f t h e i n t ers ect i o n.

Aft er d i s co v ery , DOTD fi l ed a m o t i on fo r s u m m a r y ju d g m en t

. In s u p p o rt
,

DOTD rel i ed o n t h e affi d av it o f Kev i n Bl u n ck

, a ci v i l en g in eer em pl o y ed b y DOTD,

wh o av erred t h at at th e t i m e o f t h e a c ci d en t
, DOTD d i d n o t h av e a reco rd o f an y

rep ai rs , m ai nt en an ce, o r co n s tru ct i o n pro ject s t h at were bei n g p e r f o r m ed i n t h e

s ect i on o f Hi g hway 5 3 8 l o cat ed at o r n ear t h e i n t ers ect i o n

. M r. Bl un ck s t at ed DOTD

h ad n o reco rd o f an y co m p l ai n t s wi t h i n 1 8 0 d ay s p ri or t o t h e acci d en t wi t h res p ect to

t h e i n t ers ect i o n.

Ad d it i on al l y , DOTD at t ach ed M s

. Sav an n ah ’ s d e p o s i t i o n t es ti m o n y

. M s

.

S a v a n n ah

, wh o was fam i l i ar wi t h t h e i n t ers ect i o n , ad m i t ted sh e was at fau l t fo r t h e

acci den t b ecau s e s h e d i d n o t s ee M r. M u rp h y ’ s m o t o rcy cl e b efo re m ak i n g h er t u rn

.

M s

. Sav an nah al s o d en i ed t h at a cu rv e o n Ol d M o ori n g s p o rt Ro ad p rev en ted h er fro m

s eei n g t h e o n co m in g m ot orcy cl e.

DOTD fu rt h er at t ach ed an e xc e r pt fro m M r. Mu rp h y ’ s dep o s i t i on

. W h en as k ed

i f th ere were an y ty

p e o f s ig h t o b s t ru ct i o n s t hat wo u l d h av e kep t a d ri v er fro m s eei n g

ap p ro ach i n g v eh i cl es at o r n ear t h e i nt ers ect i on , Mr. M u rp h y res po n d ed

, " No s i r. It

was wi d e o p en ."

1 Plaintiffs also filed suit ag ainst Ms. Savannah and her insurer, State F arm Mutual Automobile
I nsurance Compa n y

. Plaintiffs later settled with these defendants, leaving DOTD as the sole defendant.

2DOTD al s o rel i ed on an affi d av i t fro m Dr. J o s ep h Bl as ch k e, a ci v i l en g i n eer

l i cen sed i n Tex as , Lo u is i an a an d M i s s i s s i p p i

. 2 Dr. Bl as ch k e i n d i cat ed he was as k ed

t o ad d res s w h et h er t h e t raffi c dev i ces t h at were p res en t at t h e t im e o f t h e cras h o n La.

Hwy

. 5 3 8 at o r near i t s i n t ers ect i o n wi th Rav en d al e Dri v e were i n co m p li an ce wi th

t h e M a n ual o n Un i fo rm Traffi c Co n t ro l Dev i ces an d al s o wh et h er th ere w e r e

s u ffi ci en t s i g ht d i s t an ces av ai l ab l e fo r m o t o ri s ts t rav el i n g al o n g th is ro u t e t o b e ab l e

t o o bs erv e safel y b o t h t h e traffi c co n t ro l dev ices t h at were p res en t an d an y o n -co m i n g

t raffi c.

To p rep are hi s affi d av i t a n d ren d er an op i n i o n , Dr. Bl as ch k e ad v i s ed h e

“ p ers o n al l y v i ewed an d i n s p ect ed t h e cras h s it e on t wo s ep arat e o ccas i o n s an d t h e

s u rro u n d i n g areas o f b o t h La. Hwy

. 5 38 (a/ k / a Ol d M oo ri n gs p o rt Ro ad ) an d

Rav en d al e Dri ve i n Sh rev ep o rt
, Cad d o Pari s h

, Lo u i si an a.” D r. Bl as ch k e co n d u ct ed

l i nes -o f-s i g h t an d t i m e/ d is t an ce ev al u at i o n s (rel at i ve t o av ai l ab le s i g h t d is t an ces ) fo r

m o to ri s t s o p erat in g v eh i cl es i n t h e v i ci ni t y o f t h e i nt ers ect i on at i ss u e an d rev i ewed

m u lt i p l e p l ead in g s , d ep os i ti o ns , rep ort s , an d d em o n s t rat i v e ev i d en ce i n co n n ect i o n

wi t h h is i n v es t i g at i o n

. Bas ed o n t h i s rev i ew, h e s t at ed :

M y rev i ew o f t h e reco rd s m en t io n ed an d m y ev al u at i o n o f b ot h ro ad w ay s rev eal ed t h at at th e t i m e o f t h e cras h

, t h ere

were n o ro ad way ab n o rm a l i t ies o r d es ig n d efi ci en ci es o n Lo u i s i an a H i g hway 5 3 8

, at or n ear it s i n t ers ect i o n w i t h
Rav en d al e Dri ve, t h at wo u l d b e co n s i d ered i n v i o l at i o n o f

o r i n co ns i s t en t wi t h an y ro ad way d es i g n s t an dard s o r g ui del i n es at th e t i m e o f o ri g i nal co n s t ru ct i o n

. Th ere were

s u ffi ci en t l i n es -o f-s i g h t (o r s i g h t d i s tan ces ) av ai la b l e fo r b ot h dri vers t o o b s erv e t h e v ari o u s traffi c co n tro l d ev i ces t h at were i n pl ace al o n g t h ei r res p ect iv e t rav el ro ut es

. Th ere al s o was s u ffi ci en t s t o p pi n g s ig h t di sta n ces av ai l ab l e fo r b ot h d ri v ers t o o b s erv e t h e ap p ro ach i n g i n t er s e c t i o n , s ee an y veh i cl e p res en t at or ap p ro ach i ng t h e i n t ers ect i o n , an d n eg ot i at e t h e i n t ers ect i o n s afel y

.

2 The affidavit indicates Dr. B laschke received his B achelor of Science in civil eng ineering from
Tex as A& M University in 1971; an M.E. in civil eng ineering from Tex as A & M University in 1972; and a Doctor of Eng ineering , from Tex as A& M University in 1983.

3Fi n al l y , Dr. Bl as ch k e co n cl u d ed t h e a r e a of ro ad way at i s s u e t h at was b ei n g

t rav el ed up o n by p l ai n t i ff was n o t u n reas o nab l y d an g ero us

. H e ex p l ai ned th at al l t h e

p h y s i cal ev i d en ce as wel l as th e t es t i m o n y o f t he two dri v ers rev eal ed th e s o l e cau s e

o f t h e cras h w as M s

. Sav an n ah ’ s fai l u re t o y iel d t h e ri g h t -o f-way t o th e on -co m i n g

m o to rcy cl e dri v en b y Ro b ert M u rp h y

. B o t h d ri v ers t es t i fi ed t h ere were n o s i g ht

d i s t an ce res t ri ct i o ns rel at iv e t o t h e g eo m et ry o f t h e ro ad way t hat p ro h i b it e d ei t h er

d ri v er fro m s eei n g th e o t h er res p ect i v e v eh icl e pri o r t o t h e cra s h

. A d d i t i o n al l y , h e

n o t ed M s

. Sav an n ah cl earl y t es t i fi ed t h at s h e was “ at fau l t ” an d h er act i o n s were t h e

cau s e o f t h e cras h

.

In o p p o si t io n to DOTD’ s m ot i o n, p l ai n ti ffs rel i ed o n t h e affi d av i t o f V.O.

Tek el l

, J r., a t raffi c o p erat io n s en g i n eer. M r. T ek el l’ s affi d av i t i n d i cat ed h e recei v ed

h i s Bach el o r o f Sci en ce in ci v i l en g i n eeri n g fro m t h e Un i v ers i t y o f Lo u i s i an a at

Lafay et t e i n 19 8 0

. Hi s p o st -g rad u at e t rai n i n g i n cl u d es t raffi c i n s t i t u t e co u rs es an d

fed eral h ig h w ay ad m i n i s t rat io n co urs es

.

To p rep are h i s affi d av i t an d ren d er an o p i n io n, M r. Tek el l rev i ewed m u l t i p l e

p l ead i n g s , d ep o s i t i o ns , acci d en t rep o rt s , ex cerp t s fro m t h e Am eri can As s o ci at i o n o f

St at e Hi g h w ay Offi ci al s (“ AASHO”) p u b l i cat io n s , an d cert ai n DOTD d ai l y wo rk

rep o rt s

. 3

M r. Tek el l s t at ed t h at i n a 1 9 4 0 pu b l icat i o n, AASHO o p in ed th at reg ard l es s o f

t h e t y p e o f i n t ers ect i o n , fo r safet y an d eco n om y , i n t ers ect i n g ro ad s sh o ul d m eet at o r

n e arl y at ri g h t an g l es

. M r. T ek el l n o t es t h e A ASHO m ad e rep eat affi rm at i o n s i n

1 9 6 5 , 1 9 7 3 , 1 9 8 4, 1 9 9 0 , 2 0 0 1, 2 0 0 4 , an d 2 0 1 1

. Acco rd i n g t o M r. T ek el l

, b as ed o n

3 A ttached to Mr. Tekell’s affidavit were various d ocuments, including ex cerpts from th e AAS H O standards. DOTD filed a motion to strike all the attachments (other than Mr. Tekell’s curriculum vitae), arg uing the documents were not properly authenticated and did not f all within the categ ory of documents authoriz ed under the Code of Civil Procedure to be filed in opposition to a motion for summa r y j u d gm en t

. The district court g ranted the motion to strike, and the court of appeal affirmed this p ortion o f the district court’s ruling

. Plaintiffs did not seek review in this court; therefore, the ruling

on the motion to strike is final.

4h i s rev i ew o f a 2 0 1 2 a e r i a l p h o t o o f t h e i nt ers ect i o n at i s s ue an d th e AASHO

g u i d el i n es , i t was h i s o p i ni o n t he “ Y” i n t ers ect i o n at i s su e was co n s t ru ct ed at an acu t e

an g le o f les s t h an t wen t y deg re es

. M r. Tek el l fu rt h er s t at es t h at “ w h i l e i t i s n o t y et

k n o wn w h en t h i s p art i cu l ar i n t ers ect i on was co n s t ru ct ed t h ere h as b een o v er 1⁄2

cen t u ry of n o t i ce th at t h e d es i g n i s fl awed an d acci d en t p ro ne.” Fi n al l y , M r. Tek el l

co n cl u d ed t h e l ay o u t o f t he i n t ers ect i o n was a “ co n t ri b u ti n g fact o r” to t h e c ras h at

i s su e.

Aft er a h eari n g , t h e d i st ri ct co u rt g ran ted DOTD’ s m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary

ju d g m en t
, fi n d i n g t h ere were no g en u i n e i s s u es o f m at eri al f a c t in d i s p u t e. In o ral

reas on fo r ju d gm en t , t h e d i s t ri ct co urt s t at ed :

Th e pro bl em i s, [M r. Tek el l ] do es n o t s ay i n h i s affi d av i t
t h at t h i s , t h e d es ig n o f th i s i n t ers ect i o n is u n reas o n ab l y d an g ero u s

. It wo u l d cert ai n l y seem t o m e t h at a ci v i l

en g i n eer o f h i s ex p er i e n c e wo u ld k n o w in ord er t o d efeat

a m o t i o n fo r s u m

m ary ju dg m en t h e n eed s t o s ay i t ’s

u nreas o n ab l y

d an g ero u s i f t h at ’ s h is o p i ni o n , an d h e d o es

n ot s ay t h at i n h is affi d av i t

. It ’ s co n sp i cu ou s ly ab s en t fro m h is affi d av i t. . . .

* * *
Ho wev er, I d o ag ree wi t h d efen s e co u n s el i n t h is cas e. W e h av e a s i t u at io n wh ere h e h as an en g i n eer w h o h as l o o k ed

at t h e s it e pers o n al l y o n t wo o ccas i o n s , h e h as rev iewed th e p l ead i n g s , an d s t at es i n h i s affi d av i t, q u o t e, fu rt h er, al l

p hy s ical ev i d en ce an d t es t i m o n y o f th e t wo d ri v ers rev eal s t h at t h e s o l e cau se o f t h e cras h at i s s u e was M s. Sav an n ah ’ s fai l u re t o y i el d t he ri g h t -o f-way t o t h e M u rp h y m o t orcy cl e. Bo t h dri v ers tes t i fi ed t h at th ere w e r e n o s i g h t d i st an ce

res t ri ct i o n s rel at i v e t o t h e g eo m et ry o f th e ro a d w a y t hat

p ro h i b it ed ei t h er d ri v er fro m seei n g t h e ot h er v eh i cl e p ri o r t o t h e cras h

. In ad d i t i o n , M s

. Sav an n ah cl earl y t es t i fi ed

t h at s h e w as at fau l t
, an d h er act i o n s were t h e cau s e o f th e

cras h

.

M r. Tek el l

, o n t h e o t h er han d

, d i d n ot p ers o n al l y v i ew th e acci d en t si t e, an d as I’ v e po i n ted o u t
, I’ v e read t hro u g h h i s affi d av i t
, an d h e d o es n o t t es t ify i n hi s affi d av i t th at th e d es i gn o f t h e i n t ers ect i o n was u n r e as o nab l y d an g ero us

. Th e cl o s e s t h e co m es i s t h at
, q uo t e, t h e l ay o u t of th e i n t ers ect i o n w as a co n t ri b u t i n g fact o r t o th e cras h t ha t

5o ccu rred o n Decem b er 5

, 2 0 1 2

. Th at d o es n o t - - t h at fal l s far s h o rt o f ren deri n g an o pi n i o n t h at t h e d es i gn o f th e i n t ers ect i on w as u n reas o n ab l y dan g ero u s

. As p o i n ted o u t b y co u n s el fo r D OT D, th e reco m m en d at i o n s ci t ed b y p lai n t i ffs are ju s t t h at
, reco m m en d at i o n s , b u t th ey are n o t

m an d at o ry

.

T h e r e fo re, t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt g ran t ed s u m m ary ju d g m en t in fav o r o f D O T D

fi nd i ng “ no g en u i n e i s su e o f m at eri al fact p res en t i n th i s cas e.” In d oi n g s o , t h e co u rt

ex p lai n ed “ p l ai n t i ff’ s ex p ert d o es n o t ren d er an o p i ni o n t h at t h e in t ers ect i o n was

u n reas o nab l y dan g ero u s, o n ly t h at i t m ay h av e b een a co n t ri b u t i n g fact o r t o t h e

acci den t .”

Pl ai n t i ffs ap peal ed

. Th e co u rt o f ap p eal rev ers ed

, fi n d i n g “ t h at g en u in e i s s u es

o f m at eri al f

a c t e x i s t as to wh et h er t he des i g n o f t h e i n t ers ect io n i s u n reas o n ab l y

d an gero us , wh et h er D O TD h ad n o t ice o f t h e h azard an d wh et her t h e i n ters ect i o n

d es i g n was a ca u s e o f t h e dam ag es

. Mu r p h y v. Sa va nn a h

, 51 ,9 0 6 (La. A p p

. 2 Ci r.

4 / 1 1 / 1 8 ), 2 4 6 So .3 d 7 8 5 , 7 9 5

.
Up o n DOTD’ s ap p li cat i o n , w e g ran t ed cert i o rari t o co n si d er th e co rrect n es s o f

t h i s d eci s i o n

. Mu r

ph y v. S a va n n a h , 1 8 -0 9 91 (La. 1 2 / 3 /1 8 ), _

_ _ So .3 d

_

_ _.

DI SCUSSI ON

A m o t i o n fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t is a p ro ced u ral d ev i ce u s ed wh en th ere i s n o

g en ui n e is s u e o f m at eri al fact fo r al l o r p art o f t h e rel i ef p ray ed fo r b y a l i t i g an t

. Beer

In d u s. Lea g u e o

f Lo u is i a na v. Ci t

y o f New Or l ea n s , 2 0 1 8-0 2 8 0 (La. 6 / 2 7/ 1 8), 2 5 1 So

.

3 d 38 0

, 3 8 5

– 8 6 ; Du n ca n v. U.S .A.A. In s

. Co

. , 0 6 -3 6 3 (La. 11 / 2 9 / 0 6 ), 9 5 0 So .2 d 5 4 4,

5 4 6

. Th e s u m

m ary ju d g m en t p r o c e d u r e i s d es i g n ed t o s ecu re th e ju s t
, s p eed y an d

i n ex p en si v e d et e rm i nat i o n o f ci v i l act io n s (wi t h th e ex cep t i o n o f cert ai n d o m es t i c

m at t ers ) an d i s fav o red i n o u r l aw. La. Co d e Ci v

. P. art
, 9 6 6 (A)(2 ); Ken n ed y v.

S h er if f o f Ea s t Ba to n Ro u g e , 2 0 0 5 -1 4 1 8 (La. 7 / 1 0 /0 6 ), 9 3 5 So .2 d 6 6 9, 6 8 6

.

6A s u m m ary ju dg m en t i s rev i ewed o n ap p eal d e n o v o, wi t h t h e ap p el l at e co u rt

u s i n g t h e s am e cri teri a t h at g o v ern t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s det erm in at i o n o f wh et her s u m m ary

ju d g m en t i s ap p ro p ri at e; i .e., w h et h er t here i s an y g en u i n e i s s u e o f m at eri al fact

, an d

wh et h er t h e m o v an t i s en t i t l ed t o ju d g m en t as a m at t er o f l aw. W r ig h t v. Lo u i s i a n a

Po wer & Li

g h t , 0 6 -1 1 8 1 (La. 3 / 9 / 0 7 ), 95 1 So .2 d 10 5 8

, 1 0 7 0

. A co u rt m u s t g ran t a

m o ti o n fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t “ i f t h e p l ead i n g s , d ep o s i t i o n s , an swers to

i n t erro g at o ri es , an d ad m is s i o n s o n fi l e, t o g et her wi th t h e affi d av i ts
, i f an y , s h o w t h at

t h ere i s n o g en ui n e i s su e as t o m at eri al fact

, an d t h at m o v er is en t i t l ed t o ju dg m en t as

a m at t er o f l aw.” La. Co d e Ci v . P. art . 9 6 6(B); Ken n ed y , 9 3 5 So .2 d at 6 86

.

O n a m o t i o n fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t
, t h e bu rd en o f p ro of rem ai n s wi t h t h e

m o van t

. Ho wev er, i f t h e m ov i n g p art y wi ll n o t b ear th e b u rd en o f p ro o f o n t h e i s s u e

at t ri al an d p o i n t s o u t t hat t h ere i s an ab s en ce o f fact u al s u p p o rt fo r o n e o r m o re

el em en t s es s en t i al t o t h e ad v ers e p art y 's cl ai m , act i o n , or d efen se, t h en t h e

n o n -m o v i n g p art y m

u s t pro d u ce fact u al s u p p o rt s u ffi ci en t t o es t ab l i s h t h at h e wi l l b e

ab l e to s at i s fy h i s ev i d en t i ary b u rd en o f p ro of at t ri al

. If t h e o p po n en t o f t h e m o t i o n

fai l s t o d o s o , t h ere i s n o g en u i n e is s u e o f m at eri al fact an d s u m m ary ju d g m en t wi l l

b e g ran t ed

. L a

. C o d e Ci v

. P. art

. 9 6 6(D)(2 ); Bu f ki n v. Fel i

p e's Lo u i s i a n a , LLC

,

2 0 1 4

- 0 2 8 8 ( La. 1 0 /1 5 / 1 4 ), 17 1 So .3 d 8 5 1

, 8 5 4; Sch u lt z v. Gu o t h

, 1 0

– 0 3 4 3

(La.1 / 1 9 /1 1 ), 5 7 So .3 d 1 0 0 2

, 1 0 0 6

.

In th e i n s t an t cas e, DOTD wi l l no t b ear t h e bu rd en o f p ro o f at t ri al

. Th erefo re,

as t h e p art y

m o v i ng fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t
, DOTD’ s b u rd en is t o s h o w an ab s en ce

o f fact u al s u p po rt fo r o n e o r m ore el em en ts es s en t i al t o p l ai n ti ffs ’ cl ai m

.

In ord er fo r p l ai n t i ffs t o p rev ai l i n t h ei r cl ai m ag ai ns t D OTD, t h ey m u s t p ro v e:

(1 ) DOTD h ad cu s t o d y of t h e t h i n g wh i ch cau s ed p l ai n t i ffs ' d am ag es , (2 ) t h e t h i n g

was defect iv e b ecau s e it h ad a co n d i t i o n wh i ch creat ed an u n reas o n ab l e ri s k o f h arm ,

7(3 ) DOTD h ad act u al o r co n s t ru ct i v e n o t i ce o f th e defect an d fai l ed t o t ak e co rrect i v e

m eas u res wi th i n a reas on ab l e t i m e, an d (4 ) t h e defect was a cau s e-i n-fact o f p l ai n t i ffs '

i n ju ri es

. Co rmi er

v. Co m ea u x , 9 8 -2 3 7 8 (La. 7 / 7 / 9 9 ), 7 4 8 So .2 d 1 1 2 3 , 1 1 2 7

.

Th e m ai n fo cu s o f DOTD’ s m o ti o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t was o n p l ai n t i ffs ’

i n ab i l i t y t o es t ab l i s h t he d e s ig n o f t h e i nt ers ect i on creat ed an u n reas o nab l e ri s k o f

h arm

. In s u p p o rt o f i t s po s it i o n , DOTD rel i ed o n t h e ex pert affi d av i t o f D r. Bl as ch ke,

wh o o p i n ed t h at at t h e ti m e o f t h e acci den t
, t h ere were “ n o ro ad way ab n o rm al i t i es o r

d es i g n d efi ci en ci es o n Lo u is i a n a H i g h way 5 3 8, at o r n ear i t s in t ers ect i o n wi th

Rav en d al e Dri v e, t h at wo u l d b e co n s i d ered in v i o l at i o n o f o r i n c on s i s t en t w i t h an y

ro ad way d es i g n s t an d ard s o r gu i d el i nes at t h e t i m e o f o ri g i n al co n st ru ct io n .” Dr.

Bl as ch ke fu rt h er ex p l a i n ed t h at t h ere were “ s u ffi ci en t li n es -o f-s i g h t (o r s i g ht

d i s t an ces ) av ai l ab l e fo r b o t h d ri v ers to o b s erv e th e v ari o u s traffi c co n t ro l d ev i ces t h at

were i n p l ace al on g t hei r res p ect i v e t rav el ro ut es .” T h i s as s ert i o n was co rro b o rat ed

b y Ms

. Sav an n ah

, w h o e x p res s l y d en i ed t h at t h e cu rv e o n Ol d M o o ri n g s p ort Ro ad

p rev en ted h er fro m seei n g t h e o n co m in g m o t o rcy cl e. Si m il arl y , M r. M u rp h y t es t i fi ed

i n h i s d ep o s i t i o n t h at t h e i n t ers ect i o n was “ wi d e o p en ” wi t h res p ect t o v i s i b i l i t y

.

Co n si d eri ng t h i s ev id en ce, we fi n d DOTD s at i s fi ed i ts i n i t i al b urd en o f

es t ab l i s h in g a l ack o f fact u al s u p p o rt fo r es s en t ial el em en t s o f p l ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m

.

Th erefo re, t h e b u rd en s hi f t e d t o p l ai n t iffs to es t ab l i s h t h at t h ey can s at i s fy t h ei r

b u rd en o f p ro of at t ri al

.

Pl ai n t i ffs ’ o p p o si t i o n rel i es o n t h e affi d av i t o f M r. Tek el l

. Mr. Tek el l ci t ed t h e

AASHO s t an d ard s f

o r th e p ro p o s i t i o n t h at fo r reas o n s o f safet y an d eco n o m y ,

i n t ers ect i n g ro ad s “ s h o ul d ” m eet at o r n earl y at ri g ht an g l e s

. Acco rd i n g t o M r.

Tek el l ’ s affi d av it

, t h e i n t ers ect i o n at i s s u e was co n s t ru ct ed at an acu t e an gl e o f l es s

t h an t wen t y d e g rees

. He o p in ed t h at s u ch a d es i g n i s “ fl awed an d acci d en t p ro n e,”

8an d h e co n cl u ded t h e l ay o u t o f t h e i n t ers ect io n was a “ co n tri b u t i n g fact or” t o t h e

cras h at i s s u e.

Un l i ke Dr. Bl as ch k e’ s affi d av i t
, M r. Tek el l ’ s affi dav i t i s d ev o id o f an y fact u al

s u p p ort fo r h i s co ncl u s i o n t h at t h e d es i g n o f t h i s p a r t icu l ar i n ters ect i o n was a

co n tri b u t i n g fact t o t h e acc i d e n t

. A t m o s t
, h e s u g ges t s th e i n t ers ect i o n d o es n ot

s at i s fy t he g en eral req u i rem en t s of t h e 1 9 4 0 AASHO g u i d el i n es t h at i n t ers ect i o n

ro ad s , fo r reas o n s o f “ s afet y an d eco n o m y ,” s h o u l d m eet at o r n earl y at ri g ht an g l es

.

H o w e v er, h e do es n o t i nd icat e t h at t h i s req u i rem en t i s m an d at o ry , n o r d o e s h e

ex p res s l y co n t rad i ct Dr. Bl as ch k e’ s o p i n i o n t h at t h e i n t ers ect i o n was no t i n vi o l at i o n

o f o r in co n s is ten t wi t h an y ro ad way d es ig n st an d ar d s o r g u i d el i n es at th e t i m e o f

o ri g i nal co n s t ru ct i o n

. In d eed

, Mr. Tek el l ’ s affi d av i t ack n o wl ed g es he was n o t aware

o f wh en t h i s p art i cu l ar i nt ers ect i o n was co n st ru ct ed

. T herefo re, rat h er t h an refu t i n g

Dr. Bl as ch k e’ s o p in i o n o n t h e co m p li an c e o f t h e i n t ers ect i o n wi t h ap p l i cab l e

g u i d el i n es , M r. Tek el l ’ s affi d av i t ex p res s l y l eav es o p en t h e q u es t i on o f wh et h er t h e

i n t ers ect i o n p red at ed t he 1 9 4 0 AASHO g u i d el i n es h e referen ces

. 4

M o s t s i g n i fi can t l y , Mr. Tek el l ’ s affi d av i t s et s fo rt h n o fact ual s u p p ort fo r h i s

co n cl u s i o n t hat t h e d es i g n o f t h e i n t ers ect i o n co n t ri b u t ed t o t h i s p art i cu l ar acci d en t

.

Ev en as s u m i n g , ar

g uen d o , t h at t he i n t ers ect i o n was n o t i n co m p l i an ce wi t h t h e

as p i rat i o n al d i rect i o n s et fo rt h i n t h e A ASHTO g u i d el i n es , M r. Tek el l d oes no t refu t e

Dr. Bl as ch k e’ s o p i n i o n (wh ich was b as ed o n Dr. Bl as ch k e’ s pers o n al ex am i n at i o n o f

t h e i n t ers ect i o n ) t h at t h ere were s u ffi ci en t l i n es -o f-s i g h t fo r b ot h d ri v ers t o o b s erv e

t h e t raffi c c o n t r o l d ev i ces t hat were i n p l ace. M oreo v er, he do es n o t d i s cu s s t h e

4 W e have ex plained that DOTD “has no duty to bring o ld hig hway s up to modern AASHTO standards, unless a new construction or major reconstruction of t h e hig hway h ad taken place.”
Toston v. Pardon

, 2003-1747 ( L a

. 4/23/04), 874 So.2d 791, 799. Mr. T e kell’s affidavit is devoid of facts as to which standards were in place at the time the intersection was constructed, nor does he

ex p lain whether new construction or major reconstruction of the intersection took place.

9s t at em en t s o f b o t h dri vers wh o t es t i fi ed t hat t he d e s i g n o f t h e in t ers ect io n d i d n ot

creat e an y

v is u al o b s t ru ct i o n s

.

An affi d av i t w h i ch i s dev o i d o f s peci f i c f a c t s an d bas ed o n co n cl u s o ry

al l eg at i o n s i s n ot s u ffi ci en t t o d efeat s um m ary ju dg m en t

. La. Co d e Ci v

. P. art

.

9 6 7 (B); Ch er a mi e S

er vi ces , In c. v. S

h el l Deep wa t er Pr o du ct i o n , In c ., 2 0 0 9 -1 6 3 3 (La.

4 / 2 3 / 1 0 ), 3 5 So .3 d 1 0 5 3, 1 0 6 2. M r. Tek el l ’ s co n cl u s o ry s t at em en t t h at th e d es i g n o f

t h e i n t ers ect i o n w as “ fl awed ” an d was a co n t ri b u ti n g fact o r o f t h i s acci d en t is d ev o id

o f an y fact u al fo u n dat i o n an d i s t h e r efo re i n s u ffi ci en t to d efeat DOTD’ s p ro p erl y

s u p p ort ed m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

.

Un d er t h es e ci rcu m st an ces , we fi n d t h e co urt o f ap p eal erred i n rev ers i n g t h e

ju d g m en t o f t h e d i s tr i c t co urt gran t i n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t i n fav o r o f DOTD. Th e

ju d g m en t o f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt i s co rrect an d m u s t b e rei n s t at ed

.

DECREE

Fo r t h e reas o ns as s i g n ed

, t h e ju d g m en t o f t h e co u rt o f ap p eal i s rev ers ed

. Th e

j u d g m en t o f th e d i s t ri ct co u rt g ran ti n g s u m m ary ju d g m en t in fav o r o f t he St a t e o f

Lo u is i an a t h ro u g h th e D ep a r t m en t o f Tran s p o rt at i o n an d Dev el o p m en t an d

d i s m i s s i n g t h e cl ai m s o f Ro b ert G. M u rp h y a n d P a m el a Mu rp h y wi t h p reju d i ce i s

h ereb y rei n s t at ed

.

1 005/08/19

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 20 1 8

- C

- 0991

ROBERT G. MURPHY AND PAMELA MURPHY

VERSUS

SHAUNTAL SAVANNAH; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY , A.K.A. STATE FARM; STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF CADDO

JOHNSON, CHIEF JUSTICE , dissents and assigns reasons:

I find the court of appeal correctly reversed the district court ’ s judgment

granting DOTD ’ s motion for summary judgment. Thus, I respectfully dissent and

would affirm the ruling of the court of appeal.

In order for the DOTD to be held liable, the plaintiff s have to prove that (1)

the DOTD had custody of the thing which caused plaintiffs ’ damages, (2) the thing

was defective because it had a condition which created an unreasonable risk of harm,

(3) the DOTD had actual or constructive notice of the defect and failed to take

corrective measures within a reasonable time, a nd (4) the defect was a cause

- in

- fact

of plaintiffs ’ injuries. Cormier v. Comeaux , 98

- 2378 (La. 7/7/99), 748 So. 2d 1123,

1127 (citing Brown v. Louisiana Indem. Co ., 97

– 1344 (La. 3/4/98), 707 So. 2d 1240;

Lee v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Developme nt , 97

– 0350 ( La. 10/21/97),

701 So. 2d 676). In this case, the DOTD moved for summary judgment, arguing

plaintiffs could not establish the design of the intersection created an un reasonable

risk of harm. Although DOTD’s expert submitted an affidavit opining that the

intersection was not in violation of or inconsistent with any roadway design

standards or guidelines at the time of original construction and was not unreasonably

dangerous, plaintiffs’ expert, V.O. Tekell, Jr., submitted an opposing affidavit. Mr.2 Tekell, a traffic operations engineer

, submitted an affidavit opining that the layout

of the intersection was a contributing factor in causing the accident. Mr. Tekell

c haracterized the intersection a s a “ Y ” intersection with an extremely acute angle of

less than 20 degrees. He stated that according to AASHO: (i) it is desirable that

intersecting roads meet at right angles for economy and for safety; (ii) acute angle

intersections increase the exposure time of vehicles crossing the main traffic flow;

and (iii) acute angle intersections are particularly susceptible to left

- turning crashes.

Mr. Tekell added that there had been over 50 years of notice that this design is flawed

and accident prone.

As t his court has explained :

I n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge ’ s role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. All doubts s hould be resolved in the non

- moving party ’ s favor. A fact is material if it potentially ensures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant ’ s ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute. A genuine issue is one as to which reasonable pers ons could disagree; if reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion, there is no need for a trial on that issue and s ummary judgment is appropriate. (Internal cita tions removed).

Maggio v. Parker , 17

- 1112 (La. 6/27/18), 250 So. 3d 874, 878 ; Larson v . XYZ Ins.

Co ., 16

- 0745 (La. 5/3/17), 226 So. 3d 412, 416

. In my view, the majority of this

court errs in weighing and evaluating the competing experts ’ affidavits to justify

reinstating the summary judgment

. It is clear a fact finder could reas onably draw an

inference that the intersection was unreasonably dangerous based on Mr. Tekell ’ s

opinion

. Thus , plaintiffs ’ submitted sufficient evidence to defeat the DOTD ’ s motion

for summary judgment.

I would find an issue of material fact exists regar ding whether the intersection

at issue was unreasonable dangerous and affirm the ruling of the court of appeal

.1 05/08/19

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2018

- C

- 991

ROBERT G. MURPHY AND PAMELA MURPHY

VERSUS

SHAUNTAL SAVANNAH; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A.K.A. STATE FARM; STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF CADDO

CRICHTON, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Justice Genovese

.05/08/19

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2018

- C

- 991

ROBERT G. MURPHY AND PAMELA MURPHY

VERSUS

SHAUNTAL SAVANNAH; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, A.K.A. STATE FARM; STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF CADDO

Genovese, J., dissents and assigns the following reasons:

The posture of this case is a summary judgment proceeding. In a summary

judgment proceeding, where each side presents an expert with opposing views of the

evidence, specifical ly as to whether an intersection is unreasonably dangerous, the

case is not ripe for a summary judgment disp osition.

In this case, involving a “Y” intersectional collision between a car and a

motorcycle, defendant /state’s expert opine d that the intersection was not

unreasonably dangerous; whereas, plaintiffs ’ expert opined that the layout of the “Y”

intersection was a contributing factor in causing the accident. Plaintiff s ’ expert

relied upon and quotes the 1940 American Association of State Highway Officials

(AASHO) publication which stated that such interse ctions “at any but slow speeds [,]

these nearly head

- on crossings at a small a ngle are dangerous.” Plaintiff s ’ expert

note s that for over seventy years, AASHO has cautioned state officials that acute

angle intersections, like the one at issue herein, are p articularly susceptible to left

turning crashes similar to the one in this case and that the defendant/ state had over

fifty years of notice that the design was flawed and accident

- prone. Nevertheless,

the trial court granted the defendant /state’s motion f or summary judgment.2 The court of appeal reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact as to

whether the intersection presented an unreasonable risk of harm. In my view, the

court of appeal got it right. There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether

this “Y” intersection i s unreasonably dangerous or present s an unreasonable risk of

harm. The question is not whose dog is bigger or better. The question is which

expert will convince the trier of fact at trial on the merits as to his/her opi nion in this

case.

The trial judge cannot judge the facts or weigh the evidence in a summary

judgment proceeding ─ that is for the trier of fact. Even though the motorist who

struck plaintiff admitted her fault, that does not mean there was only one tort feasor

or one cause of the accident in question. T here is certainly the potential for

comparative fault of others ; and

, any degree of comparative fault will defeat a

motion for summary judgment. A finding of comparative fault requires a weighing

of evide nce, which the trial court is not allowed to do in a summary judgment

proceeding ─ that is left to the trier of fact.

Should there be any issue as to the qualification s of the expert or his/her

opinion in a summary judgment proceeding, that issue is to be flushed out and

decided in advance via Daubert/Foret motion in limine. Such is not the case here.

The experts in this case, and their opinions, were received by th e trial court without

objection in a summary judgment proceeding ; a nd, when there are comp eting experts

with contradictory opinions as to material facts, there are questions of material fact

which defeat summary judgment. The trial judge is not allowed to weigh the

evidence presented by the competing experts or weigh their credibility.

We mus t be careful to strictly follow the rules pertaining to summary

judgment proceedings. Today’s summary judgment is tantamount to a third type of

trial. It is a trial by affidavit, wherein a litigant is denied two inherent and

fundamental rights ─ the righ t to a day in court and a right to trial by jury. In this3 case, plaintiffs ’ claim against the defendant/state was dismissed when the trial court

weighed evidence by choosing one expert opinion over another, contrary to the law

and jurisprudence pertaining to summary judgment proceedings.

I would affirm the court of appeal judgment and allow plaintiff s their day in

court.