Bergeron v. Thomas
314 So. 2d 418 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a successive tortfeasor case, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the second tortfeasor's actions caused, contributed to, or aggravated the plaintiff's injuries. A mere showing that aggravation was possible is insufficient to meet this burden.
Facts:
- Howard C. Bergeron was driving his car with his wife, Mrs. Bergeron, as a passenger.
- Melvin Thomas, an intoxicated driver, was driving in the opposite direction and swerved into the Bergerons' lane, causing a severe head-on collision.
- Both Mr. and Mrs. Bergeron sustained serious injuries in this first collision and remained in their vehicle.
- Within minutes, Clifford P. Chauvin, who was also intoxicated, took control of a car that had stopped at the scene.
- Chauvin drove his car into another parked vehicle and then struck the rear of the stationary Bergeron car.
- The impact from Chauvin's car pushed the Bergeron vehicle, still occupied by the injured couple, a distance of 14 feet in a 120-degree arc.
- Mr. Bergeron was pronounced dead at the hospital shortly after the accidents.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Howard C. Bergeron and her sons (plaintiffs) filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit in a Louisiana trial court.
- The named defendants were Melvin Thomas, Clifford P. Chauvin, and their respective insurance companies.
- The trial court found that the first collision with Thomas's vehicle was the sole cause of Mr. Bergeron's death and Mrs. Bergeron's personal injuries.
- The trial court entered judgment against Thomas and his insurer for the personal injuries and wrongful death.
- The trial court also entered judgment against Chauvin and his insurers, but only for $119.39 in property damage, dismissing the claims for personal injury and wrongful death against them.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's dismissal of their claims against Chauvin and his insurers (appellees) to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff meet their burden of proof to hold a second tortfeasor liable for injuries when the evidence only shows that it was possible, but not probable, that the second tortfeasor's actions caused, contributed to, or aggravated injuries sustained in a prior, initial accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Bailes, Judge Pro Tem
No. A plaintiff does not meet the burden of proof against a second tortfeasor by merely demonstrating a possibility of causation or aggravation; the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the second tortfeasor's negligence probably caused, contributed to, or aggravated the injuries. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden. Eyewitness testimony suggested that the Bergerons' positions in the vehicle did not substantially change after the second impact. Furthermore, extensive medical expert testimony established that it was highly probable all of the fatal and severe injuries, which were characteristic of a high-force forward impact, resulted from the initial head-on collision with Thomas's vehicle. The court found that the plaintiffs' most favorable evidence only suggested a possibility of aggravation, which was insufficient to overcome the defense's evidence that all injuries were probably sustained in the first accident.
Dissenting - Covington, Judge
Yes. The second tortfeasor should be held liable because the plaintiffs met their burden under the circumstances. The dissent argued that it is an unrealistic and impossible burden to require victims of two rapid, successive impacts to prove precisely which injury was caused by which tortfeasor. The "single, indivisible injury" rule should apply, making both negligent drivers jointly and severally liable and shifting the burden to the tortfeasors to prove their limited liability. The dissent emphasized that Chauvin was a clear wrongdoer whose significant impact undoubtedly aggravated the Bergerons' pre-existing fragile state, as a tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him. Exonerating a palpable tortfeasor because the innocent victims cannot meet an impossible standard of proof is inequitable.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the burden of proof in successive-impact tort cases in Louisiana. It establishes that courts may decline to apply the "indivisible injury" doctrine or shift the burden of proof when the mechanics of the accidents are distinct enough to allow a probabilistic determination of causation. The decision sets a high bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to produce evidence moving beyond mere possibility to establish the probability that a second tortfeasor's actions worsened their condition. This precedent makes recovery more difficult in chain-reaction or successive-impact scenarios where injuries from the first event are severe.
Unlock the full brief for Bergeron v. Thomas