Whittington v. American Oil Co.
508 So. 2d 180 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a civil negligence action, the mere fact that a party consumed alcohol before an accident does not create a presumption of fault; the defendant bears the burden of proving that the plaintiff's alcohol consumption was a proximate cause of the injury.
Facts:
- On November 27, 1982, at approximately 2:54 a.m., Addison Lafiton was driving an 18-wheel tractor-trailer truck owned by his employer, American Oil Company (Amoco), carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline.
- The conditions were dark, the streets were wet from rain, and a mist was still falling.
- Lafiton was driving his 77,000-pound truck at 52-53 mph in a posted 40 mph zone on Chef Menteur Highway.
- Theresa Whittington was driving her Datsun with Susan Roach as a passenger on Crowder Boulevard.
- Lafiton's truck broadsided Whittington's car at the intersection of the two roads.
- The collision occurred after Lafiton's truck skidded for 236 feet, impacting the Datsun at an estimated speed of 33 mph.
- Theresa Whittington, 18, died instantly, and Susan Roach, 14, died five days later.
- Post-mortem toxicology reports showed that Theresa Whittington had a blood alcohol content of 0.09 and Susan Roach had a level of 0.02.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of Theresa Whittington and Susan Roach filed separate wrongful death lawsuits against Addison Lafiton and his employer, American Oil Company (Amoco), in a Louisiana trial court.
- The cases were consolidated and tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Lafiton 100% negligent and awarded substantial damages to both families.
- Defendants Amoco and Lafiton (as appellants) appealed the jury's verdict regarding liability and the amount of the damage awards to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
- The parents of the deceased (as appellees) sought to have the trial court's judgment affirmed.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a truck driver who significantly exceeds the speed limit under hazardous road conditions 100% negligent for a resulting fatal collision, even though the other driver had consumed alcohol, when the defendant fails to prove that the alcohol consumption was a proximate cause of the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Preston H. Hufft, Judge Pro Tem.
Yes. A truck driver who significantly exceeds the speed limit under hazardous conditions is 100% negligent for the resulting collision because the defendant bears the burden of proving that the other driver's alcohol consumption was a proximate cause of the accident, and no such proof was offered. The court found Lafiton was not a credible witness, as his testimony was self-contradictory and conflicted with physical evidence from the truck's tachograph. The evidence overwhelmingly showed Lafiton was negligent for speeding excessively on a dark, wet, and misty night while operating a heavy, dangerous vehicle. The court emphasized that in Louisiana civil cases, there is no statutory presumption of intoxication or fault arising from alcohol consumption. The defendants argued that Whittington ran a red light due to intoxication but failed to prove either that she ran the light or that her alcohol consumption impaired her driving. Because the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving contributory negligence, and because Lafiton's negligence was the clear cause-in-fact of the accident, the jury's finding of 100% liability was affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove with evidence, not speculation. It specifically clarifies that in Louisiana civil litigation, a plaintiff's blood alcohol content is not per se evidence of negligence. The ruling prevents defendants from using the mere presence of alcohol to shift blame without demonstrating a causal link between the consumption and the accident. This precedent requires future courts to hold defendants to a strict burden of proof, ensuring that a party's clear and significant negligence, such as speeding in hazardous conditions, is not excused by unsubstantiated claims about the other party's conduct.
