Mitchell v. Roy
10 La.App. 3 Cir. 563, 51 So. 3d 153, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 1529 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana's comparative fault doctrine, fault for a child's injuries can be apportioned among a motorist who breaches a heightened duty of care, the child who fails to exercise reasonable self-care for their age, and a parent who violates a specific statutory duty, such as the law requiring children to wear bicycle helmets.
Facts:
- Darion Mitchell, a ten-year-old boy, was riding his bicycle on 8th Avenue in Lake Charles, Louisiana.
- At least eight other children were playing near the street at the time.
- Darion was not wearing a safety helmet, a fact his mother, Delisa Mitchell, was aware of as he had outgrown his previous one which she had not replaced.
- Albert Roy, Jr. was driving a minivan down 8th Avenue.
- Darion rode his bicycle from a grassy area off the sidewalk into the street and into the path of Roy's minivan.
- Roy's minivan struck Darion's bicycle, throwing Darion onto the hood of the vehicle.
- Darion struck his head on the windshield, sustaining a head injury and scalp lacerations.
Procedural Posture:
- Delisa Mitchell, on behalf of her minor son Darion Mitchell, filed a petition for damages against Albert Roy, Jr. and his insurer, Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, in a Louisiana state trial court.
- The case was decided in a bench trial.
- The trial court found that Roy's negligence was the sole cause of the accident and found him 100% at fault.
- The trial court awarded damages to Delisa on behalf of Darion, as well as an award to Delisa for her individual claim of loss of consortium.
- The defendants, Roy and Imperial, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third 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 trial court commit manifest error by assigning 100% of the fault to a motorist who strikes a child bicyclist, when the child failed to keep a proper lookout and the child's parent violated a state law by not providing a safety helmet?
Opinions:
Majority - Chatelain, Judge
Yes, the trial court committed manifest error. While a motorist who knows or should know of the presence of children has a heightened duty of care, fault must be apportioned among all parties who contributed to the injury. The court reasoned that although the driver, Roy, was primarily at fault for speeding in an area with children, both the child and his parent also bear responsibility. Darion, as a ten-year-old who had been instructed on road safety, had a duty to ensure his own safety and was partially at fault for riding into the street without keeping a proper lookout. Furthermore, his mother, Delisa, was independently at fault for knowingly violating La.R.S. 32:199, which explicitly states that comparative negligence applies when a parent allows a child under twelve to ride a bicycle without a helmet. The court also reversed the loss of consortium award, holding that a parent's mental anguish over a child's injury is not a compensable element of such a claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Louisiana's comparative fault principles in cases involving injuries to children. It establishes significant precedent for La.R.S. 32:199, confirming that a parent's violation of the state's bicycle helmet law constitutes negligence and can result in an allocation of fault to the parent. The ruling reinforces that while motorists have a heightened duty around children, this does not absolve the child (if of sufficient age and understanding) or the parent of their respective duties of care. By distinguishing the mandatory language of the helmet statute from the state's seatbelt statute, the court highlights the importance of specific statutory text in determining the applicability of comparative negligence.
