Linnear v. CENTERPOINT ENERGY ENTEX/RELIANT
966 So. 2d 36, 2007 WL 2482672 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which permits an inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence, is inapplicable in cases where direct evidence regarding the cause of the injury is available and presented by the parties.
Facts:
- Eleven days prior to the incident, a crew from CenterPoint Energy was dispatched to the residence of Dronzy and Charles Linnear to repair a gas leak.
- The CenterPoint crew dug a trench four inches wide and eighteen inches deep, running parallel to the Linnears' driveway, to install a new gas line.
- After installing the line, the crew back-filled the trench with dirt, compacting it with their body weight, a 30-pound steel tamper, and a backhoe.
- On the morning of July 16, 2002, after it had rained, Dronzy Linnear was placing items in her car parked in the driveway.
- While stepping backwards from the rear car door, Mrs. Linnear's right foot and leg sank into the ground up to her knee in the area where the trench had been dug.
- The fall caused Mrs. Linnear to suffer a herniated disk.
- Mr. Linnear later photographed the scene, which depicted an indentation of a footprint in a muddy area.
- The Linnears had lived at the residence for 23 years and had frequently used the area alongside the driveway without prior incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Dronzy and Charles Linnear filed a negligence lawsuit against CenterPoint Energy in a Louisiana state trial court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the plaintiffs' request for a jury instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was denied by the trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, CenterPoint.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' post-trial motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The court of appeal held that the trial court's refusal to give the res ipsa loquitur instruction was legal error, conducted a de novo review, reversed the trial court, and entered a judgment for the plaintiffs.
- CenterPoint's application for rehearing at the court of appeal was denied.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted CenterPoint's (applicant's) writ application to review the decision of the court of appeal.
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 the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to a negligence case where both the plaintiff and defendant present direct testimonial evidence concerning the events leading to the alleged injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Victory
No, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply. The doctrine is a rule of circumstantial evidence that assists a plaintiff in presenting a prima facie case of negligence only when direct evidence is not available. Here, the case was not a 'circumstantial evidence only' case, as both parties presented direct evidence. Mrs. Linnear provided an eyewitness account of the accident, and CenterPoint's workers testified directly about the methods they used to back-fill and compact the trench. Since direct evidence was presented by both sides to explain the occurrence, the jury's task was to make a credibility determination, rendering the application of res ipsa loquitur inappropriate. Furthermore, the case fails the first requirement for the doctrine's application: the injury must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. People fall in their yards for various reasons without any third-party negligence, so this incident was not so unusual as to give rise to an inference that someone must have been negligent.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and constrains the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in Louisiana. It firmly establishes that the doctrine is a tool of necessity for plaintiffs who lack direct evidence, not a mechanism to bolster a case where direct evidence is merely conflicting. By reinforcing that res ipsa is unavailable when eyewitness testimony and other direct evidence are presented, the court prevents its misuse in ordinary negligence cases that hinge on witness credibility. The decision also emphasizes that the trial court must sequentially analyze the three foundational requirements of the doctrine, thereby providing a clearer analytical framework for future cases.
