Thistlethwaite v. Gonzalez
12 La.App. 5 Cir. 130, 2012 La. App. LEXIS 1661, 106 So.3d 238 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury's finding of intoxication to support an award of exemplary damages is supported by competent evidence and must be upheld against a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) when it is based on the totality of the circumstances, including circumstantial evidence and expert testimony, even if the defendant passed a field sobriety test and other evidence is conflicting.
Facts:
- Rodney Gonzalez was an employee of Veolia Water North America Operating Systems, LLC ('Veolia') and was provided a company pick-up truck.
- On the evening of January 12, 2007, after finishing his work shift, Gonzalez went to a sports bar where he drank alcohol for several hours.
- Gonzalez gave conflicting testimony about his alcohol consumption, stating at one point he had four beers and four shots of tequila, and at another point that he had one drink every half hour over a period of at least four and a half hours.
- At approximately 4:00 a.m. on January 13, 2007, Gonzalez was driving the company truck on Interstate 10 at a speed later determined to be 89 mph when he lost control, struck both guardrails, and disabled the vehicle.
- The disabled truck came to rest almost completely obstructing the left lane of the interstate.
- Gonzalez abandoned his inoperable truck on the interstate and began walking away from the scene.
- Shortly thereafter, an 18-wheeler operated by Jonathan Mouton, with passenger James Thistlethwaite, struck Gonzalez's abandoned truck.
- The collision caused the 18-wheeler to jackknife and catch fire; Thistlethwaite was severely burned and died from his injuries eight days later.
Procedural Posture:
- Pamela Thistlethwaite (on behalf of her deceased father) and Jonathan Mouton filed lawsuits in a Louisiana state trial court against Rodney Gonzalez, his employer Veolia, and their insurers.
- The suits were consolidated, and plaintiffs settled their claims against Gonzalez, Veolia, and the primary insurer, but proceeded to trial against Veolia's excess insurers, Lexington and National Union.
- After a trial, the jury found Gonzalez and Veolia each 50% at fault and awarded significant compensatory damages to both plaintiffs.
- The jury also found Gonzalez was intoxicated and his intoxication caused the plaintiffs' injuries, awarding $12.5 million in exemplary damages to Thistlethwaite and $12.5 million to Mouton.
- The defendant insurers filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) to set aside the exemplary damages award.
- The trial court judge granted the defendants' motion for JNOV, vacating the entire $25 million exemplary damages award.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's granting of the JNOV to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth 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 err by granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict to vacate a jury's award of exemplary damages when the jury's underlying finding of intoxication was supported by competent evidence, such as the defendant's admissions, inconsistent testimony, reckless driving, and expert toxicological opinions?
Opinions:
Majority - Gravois, J.
Yes. A trial court errs in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) when the jury's verdict is supported by any competent evidence from which reasonable and fair-minded persons could reach different conclusions. A JNOV is only appropriate when the facts and inferences point so strongly in favor of one party that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict. Here, the jury's finding that Gonzalez was intoxicated was supported by substantial evidence, including: Gonzalez's own admission to drinking at least eight alcoholic beverages on an empty stomach; his inconsistent testimony regarding his consumption and the timeline of events; expert testimony calculating his blood alcohol concentration to be above the legal limit; and evidence of his reckless driving, such as speeding at 89 mph and losing control of his vehicle, which are recognized cues for impairment. The trial judge impermissibly usurped the jury's role as factfinder by weighing the credibility of the conflicting expert testimonies and the investigating trooper's field sobriety test results. Because competent evidence supported the jury’s finding of intoxication, the trial court's grant of the JNOV was improper and is reversed. The court then conducted a de novo review of the amount of the exemplary damages award, found it to be unconstitutionally excessive under the Due Process Clause, and reduced it.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the high standard for granting a JNOV in Louisiana, emphasizing that a judge cannot substitute their own credibility assessments for the jury's. It clarifies that a finding of intoxication for purposes of exemplary damages under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.4 can be proven by a totality of circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of a failed blood alcohol or field sobriety test. The case serves as a powerful precedent protecting the jury's role as the primary finder of fact in civil litigation. Additionally, the court's de novo review and reduction of the punitive damages award illustrates the application of the constitutional guideposts from BMW v. Gore and Mosing v. Domas, showing that even where punitive damages are warranted, their amount is subject to judicial review for excessiveness.
Unlock the full brief for Thistlethwaite v. Gonzalez