Opinion ID: 1714937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Judge's Liability Finding: Sheriff's Office

Text: In this bifurcated trial, the judge determined the liability of the Sheriff's Office and found it 20% at fault. Under the provisions of LA.CODE CIV. PROC. ANN. art. 1812(C)(2)(a)(i)(ii) and LA. CIV.CODE ANN. art. 2323, see n9 supra, a verdict interrogatory was propounded to the jury, who determined the fate of the State Police, relative to the fault of the Sheriff's Office and found the Sheriff's Office free from negligence. Although the verdicts of these two triers of fact appear diametrically opposed, that fact alone does not call into play the body of conflicting appellate jurisprudence regarding the proper standard of review in such cases. If the respective contradictory verdicts individually survive a review for error, then the troubling issue of harmonizing the verdicts comes into play and must be resolved. Our first duty is the determination of whether the findings of fault made by the trial judge and jury are reasonable and not manifestly erroneous. See Powell v. Regional Transit Authority, 96-0715 (La.6/18/97), 695 So.2d 1326, 1330; Griffin v. International Ins. Co., 98-431 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/98), 727 So.2d 485, 490, writ denied, (La.5/7/99), 741 So.2d 656; Eppinette v. City of Monroe, 29,366 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/20/97), 698 So.2d 658, 665; Cornish v. State, Department of Transp. & Dev., 93-0194 (1 Cir. 12/1/94), 647 So.2d 1170, 1178, writs denied, 95-547, 95-574 (La.5/5/95), 654 So.2d 324; Felice v. Valleylab, Inc., 520 So.2d 920, 924 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987), writs denied, 522 So.2d 563, 564 (La.1988). [13] In finding the trial judge's adjudication of liability on the part of the Sheriff's Office clearly wrong, we do not reach the question of how a reviewing court must resolve conflicting verdicts in bifurcated trials, or what is called harmonizing the verdicts. [14] The standard negligence analysis we employ in determining whether to impose liability under LA. CIV.CODE ANN. art. 2315 is the duty/risk analysis, which consists of the following four-prong inquiry: (1) Was the conduct in question a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to the plaintiff, i.e., was it a cause-in-fact of the harm which occurred? (2) Did the defendant(s) owe a duty to the plaintiff? (3) Was the duty breached? (4) Was the risk, and harm caused, within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached? Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 94-0952 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 318, 321-22. Under a duty/risk analysis, all four inquiries must be affirmatively answered for plaintiff to recover. As such, in order for liability to attach under a duty/risk analysis, a plaintiff must prove five separate elements: (1) the defendant had a duty to conform his or her conduct to a specific standard of care (the duty element); (2) the defendant failed to conform his or her conduct to the appropriate standard (the breach of duty element); (3) the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (4) the defendant's substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries (the scope of liability or scope of protection element); and, (5) actual damages (the damages element). See Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032 (La. 1991), on rehearing, 605 So.2d 1050, 1051 (La.1991). In Blair v. Tynes, 621 So.2d 591, 596 (La.1993), we stated that the Legislature has given law enforcement officers the exclusive power to regulate traffic and the public has a corresponding obligation to follow traffic regulations. Law enforcement officers are duty-bound to exercise this power reasonably to protect life and limb and to refrain from causing injury or harm. When a law enforcement officer becomes aware of a dangerous traffic situation, he has the affirmative duty to see that motorists are not subjected to unreasonable risks of harm. Monceaux v. Jennings Rice Drier, Inc., 590 So.2d 672, 675 (La.App. 3 Cir.1991). In Mathieu, 646 So.2d at 325, this Court stated the scope of an officer's duty is to choose a course of action which is reasonable under the circumstances. In other words, the scope of an officer's duty to act reasonably under the circumstances does not extend so far as to require that the officer always choose the best or even a better method of approach. In Syrie v. Schilhab, 96-1027 (La.5/20/97), 693 So.2d 1173, this Court considered the reasonableness test adopted in the Mathieu opinion, a case involving law enforcement officers in a criminal arrest setting, and extended its application to the duty of law enforcement officers who were in control of an accident scene. Syrie, 693 So.2d at 1177. We now turn to the application of that well developed jurisprudence to the facts at hand. Reduced to its simplest terms, the trial judge imposed liability on the Sheriff's Office because Sergeant Breaux failed to dispatch a deputy to assess Witt's situation at Guidry's Specialty Meats and further failed to inform Witt that he was not to move his vehicle. Additionally, the trial judge found that Sergeant Breaux's transfer of Witt's telephone call to the State Police only confused the situation and was an incomplete response because she should have remained on the line to insure that a plan was devised to move Witt from the parking lot. These reasons comport with the expert opinion of Ken Katsaris, the expert tendered by the Davis children. For the following reasons, we find the trial judge committed an error of law because he failed to fit the duty of the dispatcher within the parameters the courts of this state have set with regard to law enforcement personnel under circumstances that do not constitute an emergency. The underlying premise of the trial judge's imposition rested on his faulty recognition that [a]lthough Witt's circumstances did not rise to the level of an emergency, Sergeant Breaux had enough information to believe a dangerous traffic situation would develop the same night or the next morning. Two points need be made in this regard. First, our courts have not imposed a heightened duty to police officers unless the officer has actual knowledge that a dangerous traffic situation exists. Syrie, 693 So.2d at 1177; Duvernay v. State, through Dept. of Public Safety, 433 So.2d 254 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 440 So.2d 150 (La.1983). [15] Secondly, absent special knowledge of driver disability or impairment, we do not require police officers to anticipate the driving proclivities of people on the highway. Dubroc v. Allstate Ins. Co., 93-780 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 633 So.2d 861; in accord Boutin v. Perrin, XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/25/01), 796 So.2d 691, 695, writ denied, 01-1547 (La.9/14/01), 796 So.2d 682; Persilver v. Louisiana, Dept. of Transp., 592 So.2d 1344, 1346 (La.App. 1 Cir.1991). Generally, there is an almost universal legal duty on the part of a defendant in a negligence case to conform to the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in like circumstances. Joseph v. Dickerson, 99-1046 (La.1/19/00), 754 So.2d 912, 916; Boykin v. Louisiana Transit Co., 96-1932 (La.3/4/98), 707 So.2d 1225, 1231. Whether a legal duty exists, and the extent of that duty, depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, and the relationship of the parties. Socorro v. City of New Orleans, 579 So.2d 931, 938 (La.1991). Contrary to the trial judge's holding, it is well accepted that a police officer's duty is also to act reasonably under the circumstances. Syrie, 693 So.2d at 1173; Mathieu, 646 So.2d at 318. The jurisprudence has recognized that commercial truck drivers are required to undergo testing and licensure which involve attending a special school designed to teach the mechanics and attendant hazards of operating large rigs. LeBlanc v. Steptore, 98-808 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/9/98), 723 So.2d 1056, 1063, writ denied, 99-0087 (La.3/12/99), 739 So.2d 772. Based upon that premise, our courts have recognized that a professional truck driver is a superior actor in the eyes of the law. Stapleton v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 627 So.2d 1358 (La.1993); see also Mallery v. International Harvester Co., 96-321 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/96), 690 So.2d 765, 768, writ denied, 97-1323 (La.9/5/97), 700 So.2d 512; Hurts v. Woodis, 95-2166 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/28/96), 676 So.2d 1166, 1173-74; Gibson v. State Through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 95-1418 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/4/96), 674 So.2d 996, 1004-05, writs denied, 96-1862, 96-1895 (La.10/25/96), 681 So.2d 373, 96-1902 (La.10/25/96), 681 So.2d 374, 681 So.2d 374; Loveday v. Travelers Ins. Co., 585 So.2d 597, 603 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 590 So.2d 65 (La.1991). Thus, with Witt's superior knowledge and training as a professional truck driver, he is held to a high standard of care to the motoring public. As illustrated in the facts of the case sub judice, our analysis of the Sheriff's Office's actions requires an examination of the realistic expectations Sergeant Breaux had of Witt to act as a reasonable professional trucker. Although Sergeant Breaux did not tell Witt he had to remain parked out of harm's way, Witt's conversations with her speak volumes of Witt's full awareness that the presence of his rig at nighttime on a heavily traveled highway posed a danger to the motoring public and further exemplified his recognition of the need to park his rig out of harm's way for the night. Witt made Sergeant Breaux aware during their two conversations that he was a professional trucker, that he knew he had a dangerous load that could not be on the highway at night, that he needed a safe place for his load, that he did not have to reach his destination in Cade until the next morning, and that he had parked his load in a lot that was well off the highway. These facts created a realistic expectation on Sergeant Breaux's part that Witt would act in conformity with the knowledge he possessed and the duty he owed to the motoring public. Thus, it was in this context that Witt advised Sergeant Breaux that he would need assistance in backing his load from the parking lot. In her discussion of the decision to transfer Witt's call to the State Police, Sergeant Breaux's testimony shows that she transferred Witt's call to the State Police because it was her belief that the State Police was the best agency to meet Witt's needs. Moreover, Sergeant Breaux knew the State Police had special expertise in matters involving trucking regulations and she had made such referrals to them in the past. At no time did Witt indicate to Sergeant Breaux that he would refuse State Police assistance or that he would recklessly disregard his earlier pronouncement that it was dangerous for him to back his rig onto the motoring highway with his unlighted load at night. Based upon well established jurisprudence, we find Sergeant Breaux's decision was reasonable. [16] We find the record evidence clearly supports Sergeant Breaux's actions were reasonable and that Witt's actions were so knowingly reckless and unreasonable it rendered his conduct unforeseeable. Under these circumstances we find the trial judge clearly erred in extending the duty of the Sheriff's Office to anticipate an emergency that did not exist. When Witt contacted the Sheriff's Office, he was parked out of harm's way safely removed from the motoring public and was fully aware that he should not move his truck with an unlighted, dangerous load onto the motoring highway at night.