Cay v. State of Louisiana, Dep't of Transportation and Development
631 So. 2d 393 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government entity has a duty to build bridge railings to a safe height for foreseeable pedestrian use, and a breach of that duty can be a cause-in-fact of an injury even if the pedestrian was contributorily negligent.
Facts:
- The Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) constructed a new bridge in 1978 with side railings that were 32 inches high, which met standards for vehicular traffic but was below the 36-inch minimum standard for pedestrian railings.
- DOTD knew pedestrians would use the new bridge, as it closed the old bridge that pedestrians had used and announced the new bridge's wide shoulders were adequate for pedestrian safety.
- On November 3, 1987, Keith Cay, a 27-year-old, left a bar in Jonesville on foot around 11:00 p.m. to walk to his home, a route which required him to cross the bridge.
- Cay was intoxicated at the time and wearing dark clothing.
- Five days later, Cay's body was discovered on a rock bank 35 feet below the bridge.
- Evidence at the scene, including broken brush and the lack of a ground path, indicated Cay had fallen from the bridge.
- There was no evidence suggesting suicide or foul play.
Procedural Posture:
- Keith Cay's parents filed a wrongful death action against the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) in a state trial court.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that DOTD's negligence was a cause of the accident.
- The trial court apportioned fault at 60% to DOTD and 40% to Keith Cay.
- DOTD, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
- The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the Department of Transportation and Development's failure to construct a bridge railing to the minimum height required for pedestrian traffic a legal cause of a pedestrian's death when the pedestrian, who was intoxicated, accidentally fell over the railing?
Opinions:
Majority - Lemmon, J.
Yes, the Department of Transportation and Development's failure to construct a bridge railing to the minimum height for pedestrian traffic is a legal cause of an intoxicated pedestrian's death when he accidentally fell over it. The court found that plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the circumstantial evidence that the low railing was a cause-in-fact of the death. It was more probable than not that Cay fell accidentally, and expert testimony established that the purpose of a higher railing is to position it above a pedestrian's center of gravity to prevent such accidental falls. Therefore, a properly constructed railing would have likely prevented the fall. DOTD had a duty to provide a safe crossing for foreseeable pedestrian traffic, which it breached by not meeting the minimum height standard. The risk of a pedestrian, even an intoxicated one, stumbling and falling over the railing was within the scope of the duty. However, Cay was also significantly at fault due to his voluntary intoxication, wearing dark clothing, and walking on the wrong side of the bridge. The court found his fault was 'far greater' than DOTD's and reallocated fault to 90% for Cay and 10% for DOTD.
Dissenting in part - Ortique, J.
Yes, but the majority erred in reallocating the fault between the decedent and DOTD. While agreeing that DOTD's negligence was a cause of Cay's death, the trial court's allocation of 60% fault to DOTD was not manifestly erroneous and should have been upheld. The evidence regarding the degree of Cay's impairment from alcohol was uncertain and circumstantial. In contrast, DOTD had a 'far superior capacity to avoid the accident' by constructing the bridge safely in the first place or remedying the known defect in the years before the accident. The appellate court should not substitute its own judgment for the reasonable factual findings of the trial court, and holding the state accountable for creating a known hazard is paramount.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of Louisiana's duty-risk analysis to a situation involving circumstantial evidence and significant contributory negligence. It establishes that a defendant's failure to adhere to a safety standard can be deemed a cause-in-fact if it is 'more probable than not' that compliance would have prevented the harm. The decision reinforces that the scope of a defendant's duty can extend to protecting foreseeable, even negligent, plaintiffs. Most significantly, the case demonstrates the powerful effect of comparative fault, showing how a court can find a defendant legally responsible but then assign the vast majority of the fault—and thus financial liability—to the plaintiff for their own careless conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Cay v. State of Louisiana, Dep't of Transportation and Development