Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co.
469 So. 2d 967, 1985 La. LEXIS 8882 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana's comparative fault doctrine, fault for an injury must be apportioned among all negligent parties, and an appellate court may overturn a trial court's finding as manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong if it fails to assign any fault to parties who were demonstrably negligent.
Facts:
- Doyle Watson invited Earl Creel and his family, including Creel's 12-year-old son Shane, to hunt deer on Watson's farm.
- Earl Creel had recently given Shane a high-powered 30-30 rifle for his twelfth birthday.
- Shane was inexperienced with the rifle, having only fired it twice, was unfamiliar with its scope, and had never seen a live deer before the incident.
- After Watson positioned the hunters, Earl Creel left his son Shane unsupervised at a hunting stand.
- At dusk, Shane observed a moving object through his rifle's scope for several minutes, presumed it was a deer, and fired a single shot.
- The shot fatally struck Watson, who was 461 feet away, in the head as he was walking on a field road.
- Watson was wearing a green camouflage jacket and dark pants, and had declined an offer from the Creels to wear a bright 'Hunter orange' safety vest.
Procedural Posture:
- Ora Watson and her children sued Earl Creel and his insurer, State Farm, in a Louisiana state trial court for the wrongful death of Doyle Watson.
- A trial jury found the decedent, Doyle Watson, to be 100% at fault and rendered a verdict for the defendants.
- The Watson family (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Watson family (plaintiff-applicant) successfully sought a writ of review from the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the lower courts commit manifest error by finding the decedent 100% at fault for his own death in a hunting accident, thereby absolving the inexperienced 12-year-old shooter and his supervising father of any negligence under Louisiana's comparative fault system?
Opinions:
Majority - Calogero, Justice
Yes. The lower courts' finding that the decedent was 100% at fault was clearly wrong and manifestly erroneous. It is incomprehensible that no negligence was assigned to either Earl Creel for arming an untrained twelve-year-old with a high-powered rifle and leaving him unsupervised, or to Shane Creel for firing at a moving object without definitively identifying it as a deer and not a human. While the victim, Doyle Watson, was partially at fault for failing to wear a 'Hunter orange' vest and for walking in an area he had designated for hunting, his negligence does not absolve the Creels of their significant fault. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the court found it necessary to re-apportion fault, assigning 20% to Watson, 40% to Shane Creel for his negligent act of shooting, and 40% to Earl Creel for his negligent supervision and entrustment of the weapon.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying the 'manifest error' or 'clearly wrong' standard of appellate review over factual findings by a jury, particularly in the context of comparative fault. It provides authoritative guidance on how to apportion fault under Louisiana's comparative negligence statute, adopting factors from the Uniform Comparative Fault Act. The ruling prevents the harsh, all-or-nothing outcomes of the old contributory negligence system by ensuring that even a partially negligent plaintiff can recover, and that all parties who contribute to an injury bear a proportional share of the liability. This case establishes a strong precedent for holding supervising adults responsible for the torts of minors they negligently entrust with dangerous instrumentalities.
