Case Name: Philip LACOSTE, et al. v. Barry L. CROCHET, et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2000-01-05
Citations: 751 So. 2d 998
Docket Number: No. 99-CA-0602
Parties: Philip LACOSTE, et al. v. Barry L. CROCHET, et al.
Judges: Court composed of Judge MOON LANDRIEU, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge ROBERT A. KATZ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 751
Pages: 998–1010

Head Matter:
Philip LACOSTE, et al. v. Barry L. CROCHET, et al.
No. 99-CA-0602.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 5, 2000.
Robert G. Harvey, Harvey Jacobson, APLC, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees.
Michael Frederick Grennan, Waller & Associates, Metairie, Louisiana, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants.
David J. Mitchell, Porteous, Hainkel, Johnson & Sarpy, New Orleans, Louisiana, Counsel for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
Court composed of Judge MOON LANDRIEU, Judge MICHAEL E. KIRBY, Judge ROBERT A. KATZ.

Opinion:
h LANDRIEU, Judge.
Defendants, Kelley Completion Services/Production Systems, Inc. ["Kelley"] and Travelers Insurance Company ["Travelers"], appeal suspensively from the trial court's judgment awarding plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages as a result of an automobile accident. Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ["State Farm"] has answered the appeal alleging the trial court erred in failing to recognize its cross claim for reimbursement.
FACTS
On October 14, 1995, plaintiff Phillip La-coste was driving his car with four passengers inside on Old Gentilly Road when a truck travelling in the opposite direction suddenly attempted to turn left in front of him and hit his vehicle on the left rear side. The Lacoste vehicle fishtailed before coming to a complete stop. The truck, driven by defendant Barry Crochet, pulled into the parking lot of the Pizza Hut into which Crochet had intended to turn.
The passengers in the Lacoste vehicle included Phillip's wife, Judy Lacoste, their two minor children, James and Brittany Lacoste, and another adult, David 12Williams. After the impact, the three adults exited the Lacoste vehicle and walked over to talk with Barry Crochet. Crochet, whom the plaintiffs testified was stumbling and smelled of alcohol, was in a hurry to go into Pizza Hut to use the restroom. Crochet offered the Lacostes money to settle the accident without calling the police, saying he could not afford to hang around and wait for the police because he feared being sent to jail for another DWI. Crochet also said he was working, and handed Phillip Lacoste his Louisiana identification card and a business card with "Kelley Completion Services/PSI" printed on it. Crochet then left the scene.
The five persons in the Lacoste vehicle were each injured in the accident. Phillip Lacoste suffered back and neck injuries; Judy Lacoste suffered lower back, hip and leg injuries; the two children had leg and back injuries; and David Williams, who was seated in the back closest to the point of impact, injured his knee, hand and neck.
On March 16, 1996, plaintiffs filed suit against Barry Crochet, "Kelley Completion Services Production Systems, Inc." and its insurer, Travelers, alleging that Crochet was in the course and scope of his employment with Kelley at the time of the accident. Barry Crochet was never served, nor did he appear. Kelley and Travelers answered, denying liability for the actions of Crochet. Plaintiffs then filed an amended petition adding State Farm, their uninsured motorist carrier, as defendant. State Farm answered and filed a cross claim against the other |3defendants for reimbursement of any amount it might pay the Lacostes under its policy.
Trial was held on July 30, 1998, in First City Court.- The only witnesses were the three adult plaintiffs and Mr. Louis Gueni-ot, Jr., the general manager of Production Systems, Inc. On November 24, 1998, the trial judge rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs against Kelley and Travelers in the following amounts:
David Williams .$16,956.00
Phillip Lacoste .$ 2,668.00
Judy Lacoste .$ 7,658.50
James Lacoste .$ 4,296.50
Brittany Lacoste .$ 1,365.00
The trial judge also awarded the plaintiffs $50,000.00 under article 2315.4 of the Louisiana Civil Code, which provides for exemplary damages in cases where the defendant's intoxication while operating a motor vehicle is found to be a cause in fact of the plaintiffs injuries.
In written reasons for judgment, the trial judge stated that the sole cause of the accident was the negligence of Barry Crochet, for which his employer was vicariously liable because Crochet was "on call" on the day of the accident, a Sunday. The trial judge found that Mr. Crochet was staying in a company apartment that weekend while he awaited notification as to whether he was needed for a job with Texaco; that he had met with one of his supervisors, Bruce Gueniot, on Saturday to get an advance on his paycheck; and that Gueniot knew or should have known Crochet was driving the company truck. Additionally, the trial judge stated that the issue of exemplary damages had been properly raised at trial and that the evidence warranted such an award. According to the trial judge, he had 14"no doubt in [his] mind" that Barry Crochet was intoxicated and that his intoxication was a contributing factor in causing the accident. Concerning the amount of punitive damages, the trial judge noted that Crochet's actions had injured five people, including small children, and that his was exactly the type of reckless behavior which article 2315.4 was designed to deter.
After denying defendants' motion for new trial (which asserted that the punitive damages award exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the court), the trial judge issued an amended judgment distributing the $50,000.00 punitive damage award among the five plaintiffs, as follows
Compensatory Exemplary Total
David Williams $16,956.00 $ 3,044.00 $20,000.00
Phillip Lacoste $ 2,668.00 $11,739.00 $14,407.00
Judy Lacoste $ 7,658.50 $11,738.50 - $19,397.00
James Lacoste $ 4,296.50 $11,739.00 $16,035.50
Brittany Lacoste $ 1,365.00 $11,739.00 $13,104.00
TOTAL $32,944.00 $49,999.50* $82,943.50
ISSUES
On appeal, the primary issue is whether the trial judge erred in concluding that Barry Crochet was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and that therefore the defendants are vicariously liable for his negligence. Assuming that the court did not so err, other issues to be considered | ¡are whether the punitive damage award is appropriate and whether the judgment should have recognized State Farm's right to reimbursement.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
The trial judge's findings in this regard are subject to review according to the manifest error standard. Brightman v. Regional Transit Authority, 543 So.2d 568 (La.App. 4 th Cir.1989). The question of whether an employee's conduct is sufficiently employment-related for the court to impose vicarious liability on the employer is a mixed question of fact and law, and the trial court's resolution of that question is entitled to great deference on review by the appellate court under the manifest error standard. Russell v. Noullet, 98-0816 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 868.
After reviewing the evidence, we find no manifest error in the trial judge's conclusions that Barry Crochet was a permissive user of the truck and that he was on call at the time of the accident.
Louis Guenoit, general manager of Production Systems, Inc., testified that Kelley Completion Services and Production Systems, Inc. were two separate entities which were owned by the same person, shared the same office and business cards, and trained each other's employees. In fact, according to the documentary evidence, Production Systems, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kelley Completion Services. Barry Crochet was actually employed as a roustabout by Production Systems, Inc. Guenoit stated that the company sometimes furnished its truck to transport the roustabouts to certain jobs. In those instances, the roustabouts were paid for their travel time. In this case, a company truck was furnished for Barry Crochet and fellow employee Lynwood Neal to go to a job in Leeville on Friday morning. According to Guenoit, another supervisor actually | ^handed the keys to Crochet, but it was understood that they were to be given to Neal to drive the truck. Because the men were returning after the office closed on Friday and were waiting to hear if they would be needed for a Texaco job over the weekend, they were allowed to stay at the company apartment. Employees staying at the company apartment were generally allowed to use the truck to go get food and other necessary items. The plaintiffs testified that when he hit them, Crochet was driving a white truck with "Kelley" printed on the side. As Crochet did not testify, there was no evidence as to where he was going in the truck at the time of the accident, except that he apparently intended to enter the Pizza Hut restaurant.
Although Louis Guenoit testified that only Lynwood Neal was authorized to drive the truck in this instance, he could produce no documentary evidence of this fact. In practice, all employees were allowed to drive the trucks; Guenoit could not name one employee who was excluded. He did testify that if an employee was authorized to drive, his driver's license should be on file, which Barry Crochet's was not. However, Travelers was never notified that Crochet was not a permissive user of the company vehicles.
Guenoit also testified that his brother Bruce Guenoit, Barry Crochet's supervisor, had telephoned Crochet and Neal either Friday night or Saturday morning and told them they were free to go because they would not be needed for the Texaco job. However, this statement was shown to be inconsistent with the witness's earlier written statement, placed in Crochet's file, indicating the men would be in the apartment over the weekend.
The trial judge was apparently persuaded by two facts to disregard Louis Guen-oit's testimony that Barry Crochet was not authorized to use the truck on Sunday, the day of the accident. First, supervisor Bruce Guenoit must have known [7Barry Crochet was driving the truck over the weekend because he met with Crochet on Saturday morning "at the yard" to give him an advance on his paycheck., and he had to know Crochet was using the truck at that time. Secondly, as the trial judge stated in his reasons for judgment, Louis Guenoit's testimony that there was a driver's license on file for Lynwood Neal but not for Barry Crochet was not credible in view of the fact that the only license in Neal's file was dated 1997, two years after the accident. Because Neal was let go by the company after the accident and then rehired during the pendency of this litigation, the trial judge found it "frankly unbelievable" that they [company supervisors] would have thrown away the old copy of Neal's license if one had in fact been in his file. The judge therefore concluded that at the time of the accident, there was no license in either Crochet's or Neal's file, and therefore no reason for Guenoit to give permission for Neal to drive and withhold permission from Crochet.
An accident may be held to be within the course and scope of an employee's employment if (1) the employer provides transportation the employee uses to go to and from work; (2) the employer provides wages or expenses for the time spent traveling in the vehicle; and (3) the operation of the vehicle is incidental to the performance of some employment responsibility. Vaughan v. Hair, 94-86 at p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/94), 645 So.2d 1177, 1180, writ denied, 95-0123 (La.3/10/95), 650 So.2d 1186. Previously, the courts have held employers liable for automobile accidents caused by their employees who were driving home from work, but who remained "on call." See, e.g.: Soileau v. D.J. Tire, Inc., 97-318 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/8/97), 702 So.2d 818, writ denied, 97-2737 (La.1/16/98), 706 So.2d 979; Watson v. Ben, 459 So.2d 230 (La.App. 3 Cir.1984). The trial judge's determination that Crochet was on call over the weekend is a factual ^determination based on the credibility of the witnesses, and one which we find reasonable in light of the evidence. We therefore find no manifest error in the trial court's conclusion holding the employer of Barry Crochet vicariously liable for his negligence in this case.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
Defendants contend that the trial court erred in awarding exemplary damages under article 2315.4 because plaintiffs failed to prove that Barry Crochet was legally intoxicated and that his intoxication was a cause of the accident. La. Civ.Code art. 2315.4 provides:
In addition to general and special damages, exemplary damages may be awarded upon proof that the injuries on which the action is based were caused by a wanton or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others by a defendant whose intoxication while operating a motor vehicle was a cause in fact of the resulting injuries.
Recently, this court held that an intoxicated driver's employer, when held vicariously liable for damages caused by the driver, may be cast for exemplary damages under article 2315.4. Curtis v. Rome, 98-0966 to 98-0970 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/5/99), 735 So.2d 822, writ denied, Rambo v. Rome, 99-1617 (La.10/1/99), 748 So.2d 441.
In the instant case, David Williams testified that immediately after the accident, Barry Crochet was stumbling like he was drunk, smelled of alcohol, had weak and blurry eyes, and could hardly stand up. Judy Lacoste said Crochet was stumbling, smelled like strong alcohol, and had "glassy" eyes. Similarly, Phillip Lacoste said Crochet did not act "normal," smelled like alcohol, and had eyes "shining like glass." All three witnesses said Crochet told them he was in a hurry to get into Pizza Hut to use the bathroom, and he did not want them to call the |npolice because he had a prior DWI arrest and feared he would be taken to jail. Because Crochet fled the scene, there was no evidence that he was legally intoxicated, such as breath test results.
Defendants contend that the absence of such evidence, coupled with the fact that the testimony of the witnesses was self-serving, means that there was insufficient proof of Crochet's intoxication and/or of the fact that his intoxication contributed to the accident. We disagree. In Owens v. Anderson, 93-1566 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/27/94), 631 So.2d 1313, writ denied, 94-0462 and 94-0494 (La.4/7/94), 635 So.2d 1135, this court rejected the argument that damages should not have been awarded under article 2315.4 in the absence of medical testimony indicating the defendant's blood alcohol level as proof of intoxication. In that case, the court stated:
While most of the reported C.C. Art. 2315.4 cases included a blood alcohol level because a driver was tested and ticketed by the police, in cases such as the instant one where the driver fled the scene and was not apprehended or otherwise timely tested, blood alcohol evidence is not available. Does this mean that all an intoxicated driver need do to avoid 2315.4 liability is to successfully flee the accident scene? We think not... .Blood alcohol level is not the only way in which intoxication can be established in a civil case. The triers of fact can look to the totality of the circumstances .
Owens, supra, 631 So.2d at 1317-1318. The Owens court went on to hold that testimony indicating that the driver was swerving and driving erratically, that he smelled of beer, that he was drinking from a beer can immediately after the accident, that he did not want the police called, and that he fled the scene, was sufficient evidence upon which the trier of fact could base a finding of intoxication. Id. at 1318.
In the instant case, the three adult plaintiffs all testified that Barry Crochet was stumbling, glassy-eyed, smelled of alcohol, was in a hurry to get to a |inbathroom, did not want the police called, and fled the scene. This testimony, albeit self-serving, was consistent and uncontroverted, and the trial judge apparently considered it credible. In addition, the evidence showed that Crochet caused the accident by turning left into plaintiffs' vehicle, which had the right of way. Under the circumstances, we do not find manifest error in the trial judge's conclusions that Barry Crochet was intoxicated and that his intoxication contributed to the accident.
Turning to the amount of exemplary damages, we must consider whether the trial judge abused his discretion in awarding $50,000.00. Recent decisions of this court have affirmed exemplary damage awards under article 2315.4 ranging from $10,000.00 in a case with a general damage award of $125,000.00 [Hanson v. Benelli, 97-1467 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/30/98), 719 So.2d 627, writ denied, 98-2754 (La.1/8/99), 735 So.2d 632] to $850,000.00 in a case with a general damage award of $500,000.00 [Dekeyser v. Automotive Casualty Ins. Co., 97-1251 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/16/98), 706 So.2d 676]. In Dekeyser, the twenty-year-old plaintiff suffered a broken neck in the accident. Despite that decision, however, our review of the jurisprudence applying article 2315.4 has shown that it is extremely rare for the amount of exemplary damages awarded to exceed the total amount of compensatory damages in a case.
The First Circuit has noted that the factors relevant in determining the amount of exemplary damages are: (1) the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff(s); (2) the financial situation of the defendant; (3) the character of the conduct involved; and (4) the extent to which the conduct offends a sense of justice and propriety. Angeron v. Martin, 93-2381 at pp. 5-6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/22/94), 649 So.2d 40, 44. In the instant case, Crochet's apparently reckless driving | ^injured five people, including two children. However, with the exception of David Williams, each person's injuries were resolved within six months by means of conservative medical treatment, which consisted primarily of pain medication and physical therapy. Mr. Williams was also released by his treating physician in six months, but was still complaining of residual pain in his knee. His treating physician recommended that he consult an orthopedist, but Mr. Williams testified he was unable to do so.
The total amount of compensatory damages for the five plaintiffs is approximately $33,000.00, which amount has not been challenged on appeal. As the defendant in the instant case is Barry Crochet's employer, there was no evidence indicating that the financial situation of the defendant should be a limiting factor in determining the amount of exemplary damages. Nevertheless, we believe the amount awarded was an abuse of discretion considering the nature and extent of the injuries caused. There are no circumstances in this case which would justify an exemplary damage award greater than the total amount of compensatory damages. Therefore, we hold that the greatest amount of exemplary damages reasonably within the discretion of the trial court to award is $30,-000.00.
In its amended judgment, the trial court distributed the exemplary damages unevenly among the five plaintiffs in order to avoid exceeding the jurisdictional limits of First City Court. As a result, the least injured parties each received a greater amount in punitive damages than did David Williams, the most severely injured party. We find this distribution to be arbitrary and capricious, and therefore an improper exercise of the trial court's discretion. We therefore reduce the exemplary damage award to $30,000.00, to be distributed evenly among the plaintiffs, each receiving $6,000.00. In the case of David Williams, the h ¿jurisdictional limitation of the trial court ($20,000.00) will prevent recovery of the entire amount. This result, however, is proper because the plaintiffs freely chose to file suit in a court of limited jurisdiction. Accordingly, the total amount of damages awarded are reduced as follows :
Compensatory Exemplary Total
David Williams $16,956.00 $ 6,000.00 ($3,0U.00)* $20,000.00
Phillip Lacoste $ 2,668.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 8,668.00
Judy Lacoste $ 7,658.50 $ 6,000.00 $13,658.50
James Lacoste $ 4,296.50 $ 6,000.00 $10,296.50
Brittany Lacoste $ 1,365.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 7,365.00
TOTAL $32,944.00 $30,000.00 ($27,OJA-00)* $59,988.00
STATE FARM'S CROSS CLAIM
State Farm contends the trial court erred in failing to recognize its right to reimbursement of the $2,000.00 it paid to its insured, Phillip Lacoste, in settlement of his uninsured motorist claim. According to La. R.S. 22:1406(D)(4), an insurer who has paid any person under uninsured motorist coverage is entitled to reimbursement from the proceeds of any settlement or judgment resulting from the exercise of any rights of recovery of that person against any other person or organization responsible for the bodily injury for which such payment has been made. Under the law, State Farm is subrogated to the rights of Phillip Lacoste 113against the tortfeasors, Kelley and Travelers, for the amount paid under its policy, or $2,000.00. The record reflects that State Farm properly introduced this issue at trial and put into evidence the documents supporting its claim. Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in failing to recognize State Farm's right of reimbursement. We therefore reduce the award to Phillip La-coste by the sum of $2,000.00, making his compensatory damage award $668.00 and his punitive damage award $6,000.00, for a total of $6,668.00, plus costs and interest. We also award the sum of $2,000.00, plus costs and interest, to State Farm.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given, the judgment of the trial court is amended as stated herein, and is affirmed as amended.
AMENDED AND AFFIRMED.
KATZ, J" CONCURS WITH REASONS.
. As denoted by the (*), the trial judge actually awarded $49,999.50 rather than $50,000.00 in exemplary damages.
. As denoted by the (*)'s, David Williams's exemplary damages award must be capped at $3,044.00 so that his total award will not exceed the $20,000.00 jurisdictional limitation of First City Court.