Theopholia Thomas v. Bnsf Railway Company

Supreme Court of Louisiana
January 28, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
THEOPHOLIA THOMAS
VS.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
No. 2024-C-01252
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Theopholia Thomas - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Number(s) 131516, Court of Appeal,
First Circuit, Number(s) 2023 CA 1209;
_ _ _ _ _ _
January 28, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
WJC
JLW
JDH
JTK
JBM
PDG
JMG
01/28/2025 "See News Release 002 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-C-01252
THEOPHOLIA THOMAS
VS.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Mary
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. The jury found plaintiff was negligent but his negligence was
not a proximate cause of the accident ; however, the jury thereafter assigned 15%
negligence to him and 85% to defendant . These findings are inconsistent. See La.
Code Civ. Pro. art. 1812 C(1); Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. , 94 -1252 (La.
2/20/95), 650 So. 2d 742, 747. This inconsistency required the trial court to either
return the jury for further consideration of its answers or order a new trial. See La.
Code Civ. Pro. art. 1813(E); Ferrell, 650 So. 2d at 747. The trial court’s failure to
do so is a legal error that interdicted the jury’s fact-finding process relative to
whether plaintiff’s negligence was a legal cause of the accident. See Ferrell, 650
So. 2d at 747 ; Gladney v. May, 29,373 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/7/97), 697 So. 2d 1022,
1025, writ denied, 97-2417 (La. 1/9/98), 705 So. 2d 1101.
Such error generally prompts de novo appellate review of whether plaintiff’s
negligence was a legal cause of the accident. See Ferrell, 650 So. 2d at 747;
Gladney, 697 So. 2d at 1025. Here, however, plaintiff consented to a judgment
allocating 15% fault to him, effectively resolving the verdict’s inconsistency by
conceding his negligence was a legal cause of the accident. Under these
circumstances, neither de novo review nor a new trial is necessary. The court of
appeal thus erred in vacating the trial court’s judgment on the jury’s verdict and
remanding for a new trial on these grounds.
01/28/25

2

The court of appeal’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
court of appeal for consideration of defendant’s remaining assignments of error on
appeal.
VACATED AND REMANDED.