Case Name: W. Thomas KAMMERER, II v. SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1994-03-15
Citations: 633 So. 2d 1357
Docket Number: No. 93-CA-1232
Parties: W. Thomas KAMMERER, II v. SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS.
Judges: Before LOBRANO, PLOTKIN, JONES, WALTZER and LANDRIEU, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 633
Pages: 1357–1369

Head Matter:
W. Thomas KAMMERER, II v. SEWERAGE AND WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS.
No. 93-CA-1232.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
March 15, 1994.
Gary W. Bizal, Pierce & Bizal, New Orleans, for plaintiff/appellant.
Brian A. Ferrara, John D. Lambert, Jr., Jacob Taranto, III, Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans, New Orleans, for defendant/appellee.
Before LOBRANO, PLOTKIN, JONES, WALTZER and LANDRIEU, JJ.

Opinion:
LANDRIEU, Judge.
Plaintiff, W. Thomas Kammerer, II, appeals the involuntary dismissal granted in favor of Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans at the close of his case. We affirm.
FACTS
On September 30, 1986 at approximately 12:00 noon, while travelling westbound in the center lane on Gentilly Boulevard between the railroad overpass and Florida Avenue, plaintiff observed what appeared to be something sticking up out of the roadway. The unidentified object turned out to be a manhole cover sitting upright in the manhole. Due to the surrounding traffic, plaintiff could not avoid colliding with the manhole cover. As a result of the accident, Mr. Kammerer allegedly sustained cervical and lumbar sprains.
Ms. Joan Giron, who was also travelling westbound on Gentilly Boulevard behind Kammerer's vehicle, witnessed the incident. Ms. Giron testified that she observed Mr. Kammerer's inability to avoid the collision due to surrounding vehicles on the road. She further testified that after hitting the upright manhole, his vehicle spun out of control. In order to avoid a collision with Kam-merer, Ms. Giron pulled into a nearby Shell service station. Seeing the manhole cover in the road, she attempted to assist Mr. Kam-merer in his effort to drag the cover off to the side of the road.
The manhole cover at issue is the property of and maintained by the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans. Lyle Casimere, the supervisor of the crew which replaced the manhole cover on the date of the accident, stated at trial that the manhole cover in question was immediately destroyed by employees of the defendant, Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans. It was normal procedure to maul the damaged covers at the scene before throwing them on the truck. This procedure was implemented as a safety precaution to the men due to the cover's weight. Mr. Casimere further testified that in his sixteen years with the company he had replaced numerous manhole covers and that none of the other destroyed covers had become the subject of litigation.
Plaintiffs expert, Gregory Hero, testified that in order for the manhole cover to be sitting upright and perpendicular to the road surface, "it has to have had a chip or crack out of it to allow it to stand vertically". He further testified that had he been able to examine the actual manhole cover, he could have determined the actual existence, nature, and duration of any breaks in the cast iron itself. "When you break cast iron — a fresh break is clean gray and shortly after, you get a rust haze, and at a later time, it gets a dark red-black rust color. So there is a gradation in time between a fresh break and one that is weathered."
The trial of this matter was bifurcated. At the close of plaintiffs case, the trial court granted the Sewerage and Water Board's motion for involuntary dismissal with prejudice. In its reasons for judgment, the trial court noted that the theory of spoliation or destruction of evidence is not applicable here, and that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of a defect in the manhole cover or its upright posture.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in failing to adopt and apply the spoliation of the evidence rule to the plaintiffs case which would have shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that because the defendant willfully and purposefully destroyed the evidence, i.e., the manhole cover, he was deprived of the opportunity to examine it.
The doctrine of spoliation is not applicable in the instant case because there was no intentional destruction of evidence for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of its use. See Williams v. General Motors Corp., 607 So.2d 695, 698-99 (La.App. 4th Cir.1992). Although it does not alter the rule of law, it is worthy of note that suit and discovery were not begun in this matter until approximately a year after the accident and there is no evidence that the City was put on notice before suit was filed that the cover was needed as evidence.
We next consider whether the Sewerage and Water Board had actual or constructive notice of the defect in the manhole or cover, and, further, whether they had ample time to remedy the defect and failed to do so.
La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 9:2800 (West 1991) provides, in pertinent part, that
. no person shall have a cause of action based solely upon liability imposed under Civil Code Article 2317 against a public entity for damages caused by the condition of things within its care and custody unless the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the particular vice or defect which caused the damage prior to the occurrence, and the public entity has had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect and has failed to do so.
In the instant case, the record is devoid of any evidence showing that the Sewerage and Water Board had notice, actual or constructive, of a defect with the particular manhole or cover in question. Both Mr. Kammerer and Ms. Giron testified that they travelled the Gentilly route often and had not observed the manhole cover out of place prior to the accident. Further, plaintiffs expert testified that it was unlikely for a manhole cover "in a heavy intersection" to be "off . without someone reporting it".
Since the plaintiff failed to prove that the Sewerage and Water Board had actual or constructive notice that the manhole or cover was defective, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
JONES, J., concurs.
WALTZER, J., concurs with reasons.
PLOTKIN, J., dissents with written reasons.