Stephenson v. Bryce W. Hotard Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.
271 So. 3d 190 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a claim for punitive damages due to intoxication relies solely on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must be sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis with a fair amount of certainty; mere post-accident symptoms like nervousness or droopy eyes are insufficient on their own.
Facts:
- Bryce W. Hotard was involved in a motor vehicle accident with the plaintiff.
- Following the accident, the plaintiff observed that Hotard appeared nervous, sweaty, and had 'droopy' eyes.
- The plaintiff also noted that Hotard did not smell of alcohol and that his speech was not impaired.
- The plaintiff testified that he did not 'even want to assume' that Hotard was intoxicated.
- Hotard was employed by Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., which had a policy requiring employees to report accidents and submit to a blood test.
- Hotard failed to report the accident to his employer or submit to a blood test in accordance with this company policy.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued Bryce W. Hotard, Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., and Travelers Property and Casualty Company of America in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- The defendants (Relators) filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the district court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion.
- The defendants sought a writ of review from the intermediate court of appeal.
- A five-judge panel of the court of appeal denied the writ.
- The defendants (Relators) then petitioned the Louisiana Supreme Court for a writ to review the lower courts' rulings.
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 driver's nervousness, sweatiness, and 'droopy' eyes, observed by another party after a motor vehicle accident, constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence of intoxication to support a claim for punitive damages under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.4 and defeat a motion for summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The circumstantial evidence presented by the plaintiff is insufficient to establish that the defendant was intoxicated. To sustain a claim for punitive damages based on intoxication, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. When relying on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude other reasonable hypotheses. Symptoms like being nervous, sweaty, and having 'droopy' eyes after a car accident are not exclusively indicative of intoxication and can be reasonably explained by the stress of the incident itself. Furthermore, the defendant's failure to follow an internal company policy by not submitting to a post-accident blood test does not trigger an adverse presumption of spoliation, as there was no evidence that the defendant destroyed or concealed evidence from the plaintiff. Because the plaintiff cannot produce factual support to meet his evidentiary burden at trial, summary judgment dismissing the punitive damages claim is appropriate.
Dissenting - Hughes, J.
Yes. Justice Hughes would have denied the writ, indicating a belief that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding intoxication that should be resolved at trial rather than dismissed via summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces Louisiana's strict construction of statutes authorizing punitive damages, which are generally disfavored in the state's public policy. It clarifies the high evidentiary threshold for plaintiffs relying on circumstantial evidence to prove intoxication, requiring such evidence to negate other plausible, non-incriminating explanations for a defendant's behavior. The court also narrowly interprets the spoliation doctrine, distinguishing between the violation of an internal company policy and the actual destruction or concealment of evidence from an opposing party. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to advance punitive damage claims to trial without direct evidence of intoxication, such as a chemical test or compelling eyewitness testimony about impairment.
