Yellott v. Underwriters Ins. Co.
2005 WL 2085661, 915 So. 2d 917 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A left-turning motorist has a high duty of care to ensure a turn can be made safely and to properly signal, and a breach of this duty will result in the left-turning motorist bearing the substantial majority of fault for a collision with a passing vehicle. When a trial court's legal errors, such as admitting improper lay opinion testimony, interdict the fact-finding process, an appellate court will conduct a de novo review of the record.
Facts:
- On August 21, 2000, David Bunch, an employee of Sabine Pools, was driving a company pickup truck and turned west onto Louisiana Highway 379.
- M. Jayne Yellott was driving her car on the same highway, approaching from behind Bunch's truck, which was traveling slowly and well below the 55 mph speed limit.
- Yellott testified that Bunch did not use a turn signal, so after following for a short distance, she moved into the left lane to pass the slow-moving truck.
- While Yellott was in the left lane and her car was nearly parallel to the truck, Bunch began a left turn into a driveway, crossing the centerline directly into Yellott's path.
- The front passenger side of Yellott's car collided with the front driver's side wheel and mirror of Bunch's truck.
- Yellott's vehicle was knocked off the road, and her airbags deployed.
- As a result of the accident, Yellott developed physical pain and cognitive issues, including memory problems, which eventually led her to resign from her demanding nursing position and take a lower-paying job with fewer responsibilities.
Procedural Posture:
- M. Jayne Yellott sued Sabine Pools, Inc. and its insurer, Underwriters Insurance Company, in a Louisiana state trial court for personal injuries from a car accident.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict allocating fault at 50% to Yellott and 50% to the Sabine Pools driver.
- The jury awarded Yellott $10,000 for past lost earnings and $90,000 for medical expenses but rejected her claims for general damages and loss of future earning capacity.
- The trial court entered a judgment reflecting the jury's verdict and assessed court costs equally between the parties.
- Yellott (as Plaintiff/Appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, challenging the fault allocation and the adequacy of the damage awards.
- Sabine Pools (as Defendants/Appellees) answered the appeal, seeking to increase Yellott's allocated fault and decrease the monetary damages awarded.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Louisiana law, does a left-turning driver who initiates a turn without ensuring it is safe and properly signaling bear the substantial majority of fault for a collision with a vehicle that is lawfully in the process of passing?
Opinions:
Majority - Thibodeaux, Chief Judge
Yes, a left-turning driver who fails to ensure the turn is safe and properly signal bears the substantial majority of fault. The trial court committed legal error by admitting inadmissible lay opinion testimony regarding accident reconstruction from Trooper Mann, Bunch, and LeLeux. This error tainted the jury's verdict, necessitating a de novo review of the record. Louisiana law imposes a high duty of care on left-turning motorists (La.R.S. 32:104) and creates a presumption of negligence against a driver who crosses the centerline while making a left turn. The objective physical evidence, including the location of damage on both vehicles and skid marks located entirely within the passing lane, overwhelmingly supports Yellott's account that she was already in the process of passing when Bunch turned into her path. Bunch's self-serving testimony was not credible, particularly his claim that Yellott was traveling at 90 mph, which is inconsistent with the minor damage to the vehicles. Applying the Watson factors, Bunch's conduct created a great risk, and his failure to see Yellott's vehicle was the primary cause of the accident. Therefore, fault is reallocated to 90% for Sabine Pools and 10% for Yellott. It was also an abuse of discretion for the jury to award medical expenses without awarding general damages for pain and suffering.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Amy, J.
No, a de novo review was not required because the record supported the jury's original determination. The jury's assessment of 50% fault to each driver was reasonable and should not have been disturbed. Similarly, the jury's decision on past lost earnings and its denial of damages for future loss of earning capacity were supported by the record and should have been affirmed. While an award for general damages was required, the amount awarded by the majority is excessive.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent duty of care Louisiana law imposes on left-turning motorists, making them presumptively at fault in collisions with passing vehicles. The decision serves as a powerful example of an appellate court's authority to conduct a de novo review when prejudicial legal errors at trial, such as the admission of improper lay opinion testimony, have corrupted the fact-finding process. This allows the appellate court to substitute its own judgment on matters of fact and law. Furthermore, the case confirms the legal principle that a jury verdict awarding medical expenses (special damages) without also awarding damages for pain and suffering (general damages) is inherently inconsistent and constitutes an abuse of discretion, justifying appellate intervention to correct the award.
