Seals v. Morris
410 So. 2d 715 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of 'unavoidable or inevitable accident' does not relieve a defendant of liability for damages if their own prior negligence contributed to creating the risk or if their reaction to an unforeseen event was unreasonable, judged by the standard of a reasonable person under like circumstances.
Facts:
- Eugene Morris was driving his truck on a dirt road after fishing in a wooded area.
- Morris was approaching an intersection with Old River Road, a favored blacktop roadway, where he intended to stop.
- Before the accident, Morris had parked his truck under bushes and trees with the windows open while he was fishing.
- Morris, a 'pulpwooder,' had extensive experience working in the woods and was familiar with green snakes, knowing them to be relatively harmless.
- As Morris was about 8-10 feet from the intersection, a small green snake crawled across his shoulder.
- Morris experienced panic upon seeing the snake and lost control of his truck.
- Due to the loss of control, Morris's truck proceeded past the stop sign and entered the intersection.
- Morris's truck collided with a vehicle driven by Shellie Seals, in which Sylvester Harry was a passenger.
Procedural Posture:
- Shellie Seals and Sylvester Harry (plaintiffs) filed separate lawsuits against Eugene Morris and his insurers in district court for personal injuries, which were consolidated for trial.
- The district court (trial court) found Eugene Morris negligent, rejected his 'inevitable accident' defense, and rendered judgment in favor of Seals and Harry.
- Morris and his insurers appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit (Morris and insurers as appellants, Seals and Harry as appellees).
- The Court of Appeal reversed the district court's judgment, finding 'no actionable negligence' on Morris's part and applying the 'unavoidable or inevitable accident' doctrine, dismissing the consolidated suits.
- Seals and Harry applied for and were granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana (Seals and Harry as applicants/appellants, Morris and insurers as respondents/appellees).
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana, on original hearing, reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, reinstated the district court's judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to consider issues of amount of damages and coverage.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a rehearing to reconsider the issue of liability.
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 motorist's sudden fright caused by a snake appearing in their vehicle, leading to a loss of control and an intersectional collision, constitute an 'unavoidable accident' that relieves them of liability for damages, particularly if the motorist's prior actions contributed to the risk or their reaction was unreasonable?
Opinions:
Majority - Lemmon, J.
Yes, the trial court correctly found Morris liable because the snake was not an external circumstance sufficient to discharge him from responsibility. Delictual responsibility in Louisiana is based on fault (C.C. Art. 2315), encompassing acts that violate legal duties. Morris had a duty to maintain control and yield the right-of-way. Plaintiff established a prima facie case of fault, shifting the burden to Morris to exculpate himself from responsibility. To do so, Morris needed to prove the damages were caused by the fault of a third person or an external circumstance sufficient to discharge him. Breaches of duty may be excused by 'irresistible force' or a 'fortuitous event,' as defined in the Civil Code, but not by a lesser external circumstance. The snake's presence, though frightening, did not constitute an 'irresistible force' (C.C. Art. 3556(14)). Morris's decision to park with open windows near bushes and trees in a wooded area likely allowed the snake to enter, and while this parking itself was not unreasonable, the snake's entry was not an irresistible force. To excuse 'non-negligent fault,' more than reasonable action is required; Morris needed to demonstrate the damages resulted from an external circumstance sufficient to discharge him, which the snake did not satisfy.
Concurring - Dennis, J.
I respectfully concur. The trial judge found that the defendant negligently caused the accident and was legally responsible for the plaintiffs' injuries, and in my opinion, these findings of fact were not clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.
Concurring - Watson, J.
I concur in the result.
Dissenting - Calogero, J.
I dissent.
Majority - Marcus, J.
No, the collision was not an unavoidable or inevitable accident because Morris was negligent both in creating the risk and in his reaction. Louisiana Civil Code Arts. 2315 and 2316 require fault, causation, and damage for a cause of action, with duty defined as conforming to the standard of conduct of a reasonable man under like circumstances. The doctrine of 'unavoidable or inevitable accident' relieves liability only if the person invoking it was 'in no way to blame for the happening,' and it does not apply if the situation was brought about by the motorist's own negligence, even if the collision was inevitable at the moment of occurrence. Morris was negligent in creating the risk by parking his truck with windows open under bushes and trees, knowing he worked in woods and was familiar with green snakes. Furthermore, his reaction was unreasonable: driving at 8-10 mph on a dirt road, planning to stop, and with knowledge of the harmless nature of green snakes, Morris was negligent in failing to maintain proper control and entering the favored road. Therefore, Morris breached his legal duty of reasonable care and was negligent and at fault. The trial judge's finding of negligence was not clearly wrong.
Concurring - Lemmon, J.
I concur.
Concurring - Dixon, C.J.
I respectfully concur, not agreeing with the discussion of 'unavoidable or inevitable accident' and the reliance on Blashfield, Am.Jur. and C.J.S.—non-authoritative secondary sources. Except for an unfortunate clause ('the damages in this case resulted from defendant's non-negligent fault') the analysis in the original opinion of this court (in my view) was correct. Defendant negligently pulled out of the woods into the opposing traffic, and his negligence was not excused by the presence of a harmless snake.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'unavoidable accident' doctrine in Louisiana tort law, especially concerning motorist liability. It establishes that a defendant cannot successfully invoke the doctrine if their own prior negligence contributed to creating the risk, or if their reaction to an unforeseen event was objectively unreasonable. The ruling emphasizes a broad interpretation of 'fault' under Louisiana Civil Code articles, requiring drivers to consider potential hazards and react prudently, even to seemingly minor unexpected occurrences. This case reinforces the extensive duty of care placed on motorists and limits the scope of exculpatory defenses based on unforeseen circumstances.
