Opinion ID: 1856297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: liability of scheeler

Text: It is not disputed that it was raining and the roads were wet. A small amount of puddling would be impossible to prevent, and for the most part these puddles pose no unreasonable danger to the traveling public. See Lazarus v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 535 So.2d 923 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ denied, 536 So.2d 1201 La.1988). However, we note that our courts have recognized that excess or standing water in the roadway is unreasonably dangerous. See Coley v. State, Through DOTD, 621 So.2d 41 (La.App. 2 Cir.1993). The trial court clearly erred in finding that the accident was caused by an unreasonably dangerous puddle of standing water at the end of the curve. Substantial and competent evidence revealed that there was no standing water in the road. Although all of the fact witnesses testified that there was water on the road or that the road was wet, only Scheeler himself testified that there was a large puddle of standing water that caused the accident. Most of the independent witnesses to the accident stated that there was no standing water on the road. Their testimony is completely reconcilable, since there is quite a difference between a wet roadway and a puddle of standing water. The photographs taken by Trooper Berry the same afternoon as the accident clearly show that there was no excess or standing water on the highway where the Scheeler vehicle spun out of control. These photographs illustrate that the highway was in excellent condition, and that the area where the accident occurred was inclined and incapable of holding standing water in the amount described by Scheeler. Scheeler's assertion that a 1-2 inch deep pool of standing water caused him to lose control is implausible in light of the photographs taken by Trooper Berry. The lower courts in this case clearly erred by basing their ruling at least partially on plaintiff's exhibit 77, photographs that were taken several years after the accident. We note that these pictures were admitted by the trial court solely for the purpose of impeachment and have no substantive evidentiary value since contemporaneous pictures of the accident site were available. We have reviewed all of the photographs in the record, and we agree that over the years, there is a progressive deterioration in the surface of the roadway. [7] However, the photos taken on the day of the accident clearly substantiate Trooper Berry's report, that this was a highway without standing water and without noticeable defect in the area where Scheeler lost control of his vehicle. [8] The fact that this road deteriorated after the accident is irrelevant and no proof that it was defective on the day this accident happened. Contrast Coley v. State, Through DOTD, supra , in which photographic and eyewitness evidence clearly proved excess or standing water at the accident site on the day of the accident. We further find that the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Mr. Anderson, upon whom the lower courts erroneously based their findings of fact, cannot accord much weight. The record clearly reveals that Mr. Anderson's opinion, that substandard materials in the roadbed were responsible for the pooling that Scheeler described, was based on an inspection of the roadway that took place over five years after the accident, on photographs taken several years after the accident, and on the implausible testimony of Scheeler. On the other hand, independent eyewitness accounts that there was no standing water on the road is consistent with inspections on the day of the accident and photographs taken the same day by the Louisiana State Trooper. From the photographs, one can clearly see that the slope of the roadway makes it implausible that there was any standing water in the right lane on which Scheeler had been driving. A presumption of negligence arises when a driver leaves his own lane of traffic and strikes another vehicle. In such a case, the burden of proof on such a defendant motorist is to show that he was not guilty of any dereliction, however slight. A motorist has a duty to maintain control of his vehicle, even in rainy weather. Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 94-1252 (La.2/20/95), 650 So.2d 742. The record evidence does not support Scheeler's claim that the accident was caused by a pool of standing water near the end of the curve. Scheeler's story is implausible considering the objective evidence and the statements of the independent eyewitnesses. The accident was not caused by a defective condition of the highway, but rather because of Scheeler's negligent failure to maintain control of his vehicle. Accordingly, we find Scheeler at fault for causing this accident.