Hickman Ex Rel. Iles v. Southern Pacific Transport Co.
262 So. 2d 385, 262 La. 102, 1972 La. LEXIS 5912 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the sudden emergency doctrine, a person is not contributorily negligent if they fail to adopt the best course of action when faced with imminent peril not of their own making. Separately, an employer-employee relationship exists when the employer retains the right of control over the work and the right to terminate the relationship at will, making the employer vicariously liable for the employee's negligence.
Facts:
- Robert Allen Fowler, driving a truck for Southern Pacific Transport Co., completed a delivery at Kern’s Sporting Goods Store.
- Fowler then drove from the store's private driveway towards U.S. Highway 171, stopping about three feet from the edge of the road.
- Two 17-year-olds, David Michael Iles and Van Owen Fletcher, were approaching on motorcycles in the highway's northbound lane.
- The motorcyclists saw Fowler's truck stop and reasonably assumed he would wait for them to pass.
- When the motorcycles were approximately fifty-five feet away, Fowler suddenly drove his truck into the highway in an attempt to cross into the southbound lane.
- Realizing he could not complete the maneuver in time, Fowler stopped his truck abruptly, partially blocking both lanes of traffic.
- To avoid the truck, Fletcher swerved sharply to his left. Iles, riding slightly behind Fletcher, also swerved left in an attempt to follow.
- In the maneuver, the front wheel of Iles's motorcycle struck the rear wheel of Fletcher's motorcycle, causing Iles to lose control, fall, and slide into the truck, resulting in serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Freda W. Hickman sued Robert Allen Fowler and Southern Pacific Transport Company in a state trial court.
- The trial court found that David Michael Iles was contributorily negligent and denied recovery.
- Hickman, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding of contributory negligence.
- Hickman, as petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari or review from the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 a driver contributorily negligent when, confronted by a sudden emergency created by another's negligence, they make a split-second evasive maneuver that results in a collision?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Summers
No. A driver is not contributorily negligent when their actions are a reasonable response to a sudden emergency created by another's fault. Fowler's act of pulling into a favored highway from a private driveway without yielding violated a statutory duty and was the proximate cause of the accident. This action created a sudden emergency for Iles. Under the sudden emergency doctrine, one who finds themselves in a position of imminent peril without sufficient time to weigh all options is not negligent for failing to choose what hindsight reveals might have been a better method. Iles's decision to swerve left was a reasonable reaction to the peril created by Fowler and therefore does not constitute contributory negligence. Furthermore, the court found Fowler was an employee of Southern Pacific Transport, not an independent contractor, because the company retained the right of control over his work and, most importantly, the right to terminate his employment at any time if his services were unsatisfactory. This right of at-will termination is characteristic of an employer-employee relationship, making Southern Pacific vicariously liable for Fowler's negligence.
Concurring - Justice Tate
Yes, I concur with the majority's holding. I write separately to clarify the basis for the damages award. The majority correctly denied additional recovery for a subsequent re-injury Iles suffered while sleepwalking. This is correct only on the specific finding that the original tort-caused injury did not contribute to the later fall or its resulting permanent damage. If the original injury had weakened the leg and made the subsequent injury more likely or severe, the tortfeasors would be liable for all resulting consequences.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the sudden emergency doctrine in Louisiana tort law, providing a shield against claims of contributory negligence for plaintiffs whose actions are reactions to a defendant's creation of a hazard. It emphasizes that a plaintiff's conduct in a crisis should not be judged by the standard of calm, reflective decision-making. The decision also provides a significant precedent for employment law, clarifying that the contractual label of 'independent contractor' is subordinate to the reality of the work relationship. By focusing on the employer's right of control and, crucially, the right of at-will termination, the court makes it more difficult for companies to avoid vicarious liability by misclassifying employees.
