Tyson v. King
9 La.App. 3 Cir. 963, 29 So. 3d 719, 2010 La. App. LEXIS 377 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, liability can be imposed without a physical impact between vehicles; the proper legal framework for determining liability is the duty/risk analysis.
Facts:
- Floyd King was driving northbound on a two-lane highway in Rapides Parish, Louisiana.
- Simultaneously, Darlene Kay Tyson was operating her motor vehicle southbound on the same highway.
- As Mr. King passed an intersection, he "blacked out," causing his vehicle to cross the center line into the southbound lane.
- To avoid a head-on collision, Mrs. Tyson applied her brakes, lost control of her vehicle, and came to a stop.
- Mrs. Tyson allegedly sustained personal injuries as a result of her evasive action.
- There was no physical impact between Mrs. Tyson's vehicle and Mr. King's vehicle, nor any other object.
Procedural Posture:
- Darlene Kay Tyson and her spouse (Plaintiffs) filed suit against Floyd King and his insurer, Hartford (Defendants), in a Louisiana trial court for personal injuries and loss of consortium.
- Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The trial court initially deferred its ruling pending further discovery.
- After additional discovery, Defendants reurged their Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The trial court granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
- Darlene Kay Tyson (Plaintiff/Appellant) appealed the summary judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, 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 defendant's potential liability for negligence in a motor vehicle accident case require a physical impact between the plaintiff's and defendant's vehicles?
Opinions:
Majority - Genovese, J.
No. The absence of a physical impact between vehicles does not preclude liability in a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The trial court committed legal error by granting summary judgment solely on the basis that there was no contact between the vehicles. There is no statutory or jurisprudential requirement for a physical impact to impose liability. The proper legal framework is the five-part duty/risk analysis, which assesses whether the defendant had a duty, breached that duty, and whether that breach was the cause-in-fact and legal cause of the plaintiff's damages. The case must be remanded for the trial court to apply this analysis.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Thibodeaux, C.J.
This opinion concurs with the majority's conclusion that the trial court's grant of summary judgment should be reversed. However, it dissents from the decision to remand the case. The dissent argues that because appellate courts review summary judgments de novo and the record is complete, the appellate court has the authority and responsibility to decide the motion on its merits rather than sending it back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms that the comprehensive duty/risk analysis is the sole framework for determining negligence in Louisiana, rejecting bright-line, physical-world prerequisites like the presence of an impact. It clarifies that a defendant's negligent act that foreseeably causes a plaintiff to take evasive action resulting in injury can establish liability, even in a "near-miss" scenario. This precedent prevents lower courts from using the absence of physical contact as a shortcut to dismiss potentially valid negligence claims, ensuring that such cases are evaluated on their substantive merits regarding duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Unlock the full brief for Tyson v. King