Myres v. Nunsett
511 So. 2d 1287 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover exemplary damages under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.4, a plaintiff must prove not only that the defendant was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle, but also that the defendant's intoxication was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries.
Facts:
- On September 29, 1984, at 1:20 a.m., Leonard Stanley Myres was driving his vehicle in Shreveport.
- Myres stopped his car on Milam Street to wait for a person who had flagged him down for a ride.
- While Myres's vehicle was stopped, it was struck from behind by a pickup truck driven by Horace Nunsett.
- Nunsett was intoxicated at the time of the collision.
- As a result of the accident, Myres suffered a strained neck and low back, and a bruised chest.
- Myres received medical treatment for approximately two months and was released as completely pain-free with no permanent residual disability.
Procedural Posture:
- Leonard Stanley Myres filed a lawsuit against Horace Nunsett and his insurer in a Louisiana district court (trial court) for injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
- Myres also sued his mother, the vehicle's owner, and her uninsured motorist carrier.
- The trial court found Nunsett negligent and Myres free from fault.
- The trial court entered a judgment awarding Myres $1,000 in general damages and $750 in special damages, but it denied his claim for exemplary damages.
- Myres, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, arguing the damage award was inadequate and that the trial court erred by not awarding exemplary damages.
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 seeking exemplary damages under La.C.C. Art. 2315.4 satisfy their burden of proof by showing the defendant driver was intoxicated, or must the plaintiff also prove that the intoxication was a cause-in-fact of the accident and resulting injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Fred W. Jones, Jr.
No, to recover exemplary damages under La.C.C. Art. 2315.4, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's intoxication was a cause-in-fact of the injuries. The plain language of the statute requires more than a showing that the defendant was merely intoxicated at the time of the accident. It explicitly states that exemplary damages may be awarded when the defendant's intoxication 'was a cause in fact of the resulting injuries.' While other states may permit exemplary damages based on voluntary intoxication alone, Louisiana's law imposes an additional evidentiary burden on the plaintiff. In this case, Myres presented no evidence to establish a causal link between Nunsett's intoxication and the collision; the evidence only showed that the accident was caused by Nunsett's failure to observe the stopped vehicle. Without proof that the intoxication caused the failure to observe, the claim for exemplary damages fails.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the causation standard required to obtain exemplary (punitive) damages in cases involving intoxicated drivers in Louisiana. The court establishes that intoxication alone is insufficient; a plaintiff must affirmatively prove that the state of being intoxicated was a direct cause of the accident. This ruling sets a higher evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, preventing the automatic imposition of punitive damages in every accident where a driver is found to be intoxicated. It forces a factual inquiry into how the driver's impairment specifically contributed to the negligent act, rather than allowing intoxication to serve as a proxy for the 'wanton and reckless disregard' required by the statute.
