Case Name: Doyle MIZELL et al. v. The STATE of Louisiana, Through the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1980-10-06
Citations: 398 So. 2d 1136
Docket Number: No. 13425
Parties: Doyle MIZELL et al. v. The STATE of Louisiana, Through the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS et al.
Judges: Before ELLIS, COLE and WATKINS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 398
Pages: 1136–1145

Head Matter:
Doyle MIZELL et al. v. The STATE of Louisiana, Through the LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS et al.
No. 13425.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Oct. 6, 1980.
On Rehearing March 2, 1981.
L. D. Sledge and Randy Shipp, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant.
William J. Doran, Jr. and Marshall W. Wroten, Raton Rouge, for Hwy. Dept.
W. Arthur Abercrombie, Jr., Ben Louis Day, Baton Rouge, Richard A. Chopin, New Orleans, James W. Hailey, Jr., Metairie, France W. Watts, III, Franklinton, Duncan S. Kemp, III, Dist. Atty., Tangipahoa Parish, Amite, Lawrence J. Ernst, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.
R. L. Booty, pro. per.
Jesse LaGarde, Amite, for La.Const.
Before ELLIS, COLE and WATKINS, JJ.

Opinion:
WATKINS, Judge.
This action was brought to obtain damages for severe injuries sustained by Brenda Mizell, Doyle Mizell, and Willie Hodges in a one car accident in which a 1967 Pontiac Bonneville four-door car struck the east bridge abutment of the Tangipahoa River Bridge, east of Amite, Louisiana. Judgment was rendered against the Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana, (hereinafter referred to as "DOTD") in the following amounts for the following plaintiffs:
Willie Hodges $483,706.50
Doyle Mizell 358,944.05
Brenda Mizell 21,019.94
$863,670.49
There were several other defendants, most notably, Travelers Insurance Company, motor vehicle liability insurer of the DOTD's dump trucks (which were alleged to have tracked asphalt on the highway). Travelers was dismissed as a party defendant on a motion for a so-called "directed verdict" (the case was tried without a jury), after plaintiffs' presentation of their case on trial on the merits. Numerous third party demands were filed. With the exceptions set forth above, with regard to the DOTD and Travelers, and other exceptions, no judg ment was rendered either in favor of or against the numerous defendants, and similarly, most of the third party demands were not specifically decided by judgment. No appeals regarding these exceptions and incidental demands have been taken. Thus, we consider the claims of the plaintiffs in chief only, and those only with regard to the judgment in favor of plaintiffs against the DOTD and in favor of Travelers against plaintiffs.
R. L. Booty and C. M. Smoak under two business names operated an asphalt plant in 1973, 1974 and 1975 near the Tangipahoa River Bridge, which runs roughly east and west. Finally the plant was shut down because of insolvency or bankruptcy. The plant had an access road that entered the highway (# 16) from the north, 150 feet east of the bridge. During 1973, 1974 and 1975, several individuals and companies delivered asphalt to the plant, and the DOTD and several other users of asphalt picked up asphalt at the plant. The apparatus used to place asphalt on the trucks leaked, and asphalt became deposited on the ground, which the trucks, both deliverers and receivers, picked up on their tires and deposited in lumps on the highway as they left the plant. Except where the entrance was located, where asphalt was deposited on both sides, asphalt was generally tracked on the eastbound lane going toward the east, and in the westbound lane going toward the bridge (the west). Asphalt extended in the westbound lane at least as far west as the bridge abutment.
On the morning of January 31, 1976, Brenda Mizell, with her husband Doyle Mi-zell, drove from Denham Springs, where they lived, to Varnado, where her mother lived, to pick up Willie Hodges, her brother, who had been in the hospital. They crossed without incident the section of highway in question going east. That afternoon they left in the Pontiac Bonneville to go back to Denham Springs. Brenda Mizell drove; her husband sat on the right front; her brother Willie Hodges sat in the right rear. Also in the car was the Mizells' son, who was a child. It was raining and some water was on the road. As they approached the Tangipahoa River, the car went into a skid, and spun around a little more than ninety degrees, the side of the car striking the left bridge abutment. Brenda, Doyle and Willie sustained severe injuries.
The plaintiffs introduced two experts, John W. Lipscomb, Jr., and Dr. Jack B. Humphreys, who testified that the car probably went into a skid as a result of partial hydroplaning when it encountered the asphalt on the highway, and that the car could have hit the abutment turned at the angle at which it was found, after going into a skid at the point the highway passed the asphalt plant entrance 150 feet east of the bridge. They testified that had the car gone into a skid farther from the bridge, in all likelihood it would have come to a stop before striking the abutment. The defendant, DOTD, introduced an expert, Dr. Don L. Ivey, who testified that for the vehicle to have spun as much as it did, it would have had to have gone into a skid more than 150 feet from the bridge, before it encountered the asphalt. The testimony of Dr. Ivey was based upon a computer programming of a cornering situation, rather than a skid situation. Although Dr. Ivey testified that this method of programming was more likely to produce a result more favorable to plaintiff, this opinion was contradicted by one of plaintiff's experts who testified that the use of a cornering situation was less favorable to the plaintiffs position. Apparently the trial court concluded that Dr. Ivey's testimony in this regard should not be given much weight since the factual situation in this case dealt with skidding. The trial court, therefore, elected not to follow Dr. Ivey's testimony but, rather, accepted the testimony of plaintiffs' experts. In that evaluation of the expert testimony, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion. Furthermore, we think that it is entirely proper for us to consider lay testimony as to when the car went into a skid, and to accept it over Dr. Ivey's testimony, especially in view of the fact the expert testimony is in conflict. See State Department of Highways v. Moity, 276 So.2d 770 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1973).
Brenda Mizell could not remember the point where the car went into a skid. Doyle Mizell was asleep on the front seat, and awoke only after the car had gone out of control. However, on direct testimony, Willie Hodges, who was awake at the time, testified the car encountered lumps on the highway near the bridge and all of a sudden went "berserk", completely out of control. He stated that this skid started around the little road that led to the right to the asphalt plant. Under cross examination, he stated, further clarifying his testimony, that the skid started, he would say, within 100 feet of the bridge. Thus, eyewitness testimony directly links the skid with the lumps of asphalt on the highway. Willie Hodges' testimony is internally consistent and unrebutted.
Until August of 1975, Brenda Mizell drove from Denham Springs to Varnado once or twice a month. She took the highway in question a considerable part of the time. The asphalt lumps should have been on the highway during this period. However, there is no clear testimony that she was conscious of the presence of the asphalt on these earlier trips, or that she was aware, or that she should have been aware, of the danger it posed as a result of her past experience. Thus contributory negligence has not been established or' proved.
Reduced to simplest terms, three acts of negligence were alleged on the part of the DOTD: (1) permitting DOTD's trucks to deposit asphalt on the highway, (2) failing to resurface the highway or otherwise to remove the effects of the asphalt deposited on the highway, and (3) failing to post signs warning of the dangerous condition of the highway, which officials of the DOTD knew was slippery when wet as a result of the deposited asphalt. The question of Traveler's liability turned upon liability of the DOTD under (1), Travelers being liability insurer of the DOTD's dump trucks. The trial court held that liability did not exist under (1), as many trucks deposited asphalt on the highway, of which the DOTD's trucks represented only a part, albeit a substantial part, and there was no proof of the amount deposited by each.
We find the DOTD liable on grounds (2) and (3) and reverse the awarding of a so-called "directed verdict" for Travelers, and remand to permit Travelers to present its defense.
The state was clearly negligent in failing to resurface the highway or post signs warning of the existing danger. The record discloses correspondence engaged in by M. K. Johnston, Assistant District Engineer of the DOTD, to Booty and Smoak and to legal counsel for the then Department of Highways in which he discusses Johnston's knowledge that asphalt from the plant had been deposited on the highway and threatens and recommends legal action. This correspondence was engaged in before January 31,1976, the date of the accident. Also, Mr. Johnston himself testified he knew of the dangerous situation of the road before that date. Yet, nothing was done. Not even a warning sign was posted concerning the slippery condition of the road. The only sign was a plant entrance sign. Mr. Johnston admitted the DOTD could put up signs within a couple of days of the time it became aware of a dangerous condition. The highway, but not the bridge, was resurfaced after the accident, the resurfacing having begun August 2, 1977, and having been completed October 20, 1977.
Thus, the DOTD was negligent in not resurfacing the highway or posting warning signs. It was also negligent in tracking asphalt on the highway from its trucks. The testimony reveals that at least half of the asphalt deposited was deposited by DOTD dump trucks. This asphalt was picked up by the wheels of the trucks, and deposited in lumps on the surface of the highway. If there had been but one occasion on which DOTD trucks deposited asphalt on the highway, we might find that there was no actionable negligence, but there were repeated acts of depositing asphalt on the highway over a period of several years. To fail to do something to eliminate this tracking procedure was clearly actionable negligence on the part of the DOTD and almost amounts to an intentional tort.
We hold that proof has been established of two types of negligence, failure to remove the asphalt from the highway or to resurface the highway, and failure to post signs warning of the dangerous condition of the highway, and strong evidence has been presented of a third type of negligence, repeated tracking of asphalt on the highway, and that all these were or could have been proximate causes of the accident sued upon. An injury may have more than one proximate cause. Falgout v. Younger, 192 So. 706 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1939); Tillman v. Canal Ins. Co., 305 So.2d 602 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1974), writ refused 307 So.2d 630 (1975).
The trial court found, and Travelers contends, that the DOTD and hence, Travelers, is not liable for the DOTD's trucks tracking asphalt on the highway, as many different trucks owned by or operated by different companies, agencies, and individuals deposited asphalt on the highway, and it is impossible to determine the quantity of asphalt deposited by each. However, the various owners or operators of the trucks that deposited substantial quantities by repeatedly tracking asphalt on the highway were joint tort feasors and each is a debtor in solido responsible for the whole of the debt. Hence, the DOTD and Travelers are liable for the accident sued upon, unless Travelers introduces evidence to the contrary on Travelers' presentation of its defense. It is well settled that one of multiple tort fea-sors may be sued singly and held liable for the whole of the debt. See Falgout v. Younger, supra; Huguet v. Louisiana Power and Light Co., 196 La. 771, 200 So. 141 (1941).
Travelers contends further that its policy does not afford coverage because the depositing of asphalt on the highways did not arise from ownership, maintenance, or use of a vehicle. Words of an insurance policy are to be accorded the meaning accorded them in their common and usual signification in general and popular use. Prestenback v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 257 So.2d 698 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972). It is manifestly apparent that the tracking of asphalt on the public highway by DOTD's trucks resulted from the "use" of those trucks, in that word's general and popular signification. There can be no question that the policy applies.
Article 1810 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:
"A. A party who moves for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right so to do and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a directed verdict which is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor. The order of the court granting a motion for a directed verdict is effective without any assent of the jury.
"B. In an action tried by the court without a jury, after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, any party, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that upon the facts and law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court may then determine the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the moving party or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence."
Thus, in order to prevail on a "motion for a directed verdict" (as it is commonly called) in a non-jury trial, a party defendant must show plaintiff has "no right to relief." The method of approach to be applied in determining whether a "motion for a directed verdict" shall be granted, and the question of whether or not this state should follow the federal approach of permitting a trial court to weigh and evaluate testimony on defendant's motion for dismissal is considered in Roncal v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., 367 So.2d 24 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1979), writ refused 368 So.2d 136 (1979), which we see ultimately finds it unnecessary to resolve the question. In any event, Travelers has clearly failed to show that plaintiffs have "no right to relief" against it, using the language of the newly enacted provision of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiffs have established a strong case in their favor. However, Travelers must be permitted to present its defense both as to liability and as to quantum. For this reason we make no ruling as to quantum in this opinion.
Hence, we arrive at the following determination of the cause presented:
1. It is held that liability of the Department of Transportation and Development, State of Louisiana, for failing to remove asphalt from the highway or to resurface the highway, and for failing to post signs, has been duly proved;
2. It is held that a directed verdict was improperly granted Travelers Insurance Company, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for Travelers to present its defense with regard to the liability of the DOTD and Travelers and with regard to quantum; and
3. All costs shall be paid by the DOTD.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.