Estela Callier v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

21-598

ESTELA CALLIER

VERSUS

LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED

GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20185533
HONORABLE SCOTT J. PRIVAT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Chief Judge, Shannon J. Gremillion, and D.
Kent Savoie, Judges.

AFFIRMED AS AMENDED

C. Shannon Hardy
John W. Penny, Jr.
Penny & Hardy
600 Jefferson Street, Suite 601
Lafayette, LA 70502
(337) 231-1955
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government

Gregory Jesse Logan
The Logan Law Firm
P. O. Box 52704
Lafayette, LA 70505
(337) 406-9685
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Lafayette City-Parish ConsolidatedGovernment

Dustin B. Gibson
Dustin B. Gibson Law, LLC
301 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 400
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 501-2418
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Estela Callier

Errol L. Cormier
Errol L. Cormier, APLC
301 E. Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 400
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 237-2100
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Estela Callier

GREMILLION, Judge.

The Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government (LCP) appeals a

judgment in favor of Estella Callier that awarded her $200,00.00 in general damages,

$16,051.56 in past medical expenses, lost wages of $5,600.00, and $11,000.00 in

future medical expenses to be held in a reversionary trust, for injuries she sustained

in a September 9, 2017, automobile accident. Ms. Callier answered the appeal and

asks that we increase the trial court’s award of future medical expenses to include

expenses for a lumbar fusion surgery her treating orthopedic surgeon has

recommended. For the reasons that follow, we amend the trial court’s judgment and

affirm as amended.

FACTS1

The accident

Ms. Callier was involved in a one-car accident on St. Esprit Road near

Carencro, Louisiana, on the evening of September 9, 2017. Ms. Callier was driving

from work at Pogie’s, a bar in Carencro, to her home. Her friend, Michael

DiBenedetto, was following her in his vehicle. The two had discussed the difficulty

traffic in the area sometimes posed, and Ms. Callier was showing Mr. DiBenedetto

an alternate route along St. Esprit Road. However, as Ms. Callier had only lived in

the area for about three years, she was not thoroughly familiar with St. Esprit Road.

St. Esprit Road is a mostly rural, sparsely lit, asphalt road in Lafayette Parish.

It generally flows in a north-south direction, but, in the area of the accident, the

north-south flow is interrupted by a roughly 300-yard section that runs east-west.

Along this east-west section lies the home of Mr. Louis Leger. Mr. Leger’s home

sits on the south side of St. Esprit Road. The road is lined by drainage ditches, and

1
The following facts are gleaned from the trial testimony of the witnesses called at trial.

Mr. Leger’s driveway crosses the ditch at a culvert topped by dirt or gravel and edged

with railroad crossties.

Mr. DiBenedetto’s vehicle was following Ms. Callier’s at a distance of

approximately twenty-five feet. He had no recollection of whether Ms. Callier’s car

was favoring one side of her lane. Mr. DiBenedetto saw Ms. Callier’s vehicle’s front

right corner dip, then begin to flip end-over-end, then roll until it struck a tree. Mr.

DiBenedetto immediately stopped his car and went to attend to Ms. Callier, who

indicated that she did not feel injured. When ambulance personnel dispatched to the

scene offered to transport Ms. Callier to the hospital, she refused.

Mr. DiBenedetto took photos of Ms. Callier’s car. He also examined the

roadway in the area where the car had dipped and noticed that a portion of the asphalt

along the edge had broken. A chunk of broken asphalt at the scene was described

by Mr. DiBenedetto as “dark black.”

Ms. Callier described driving in her lane on St. Esprit Road, which she

described as narrow, when she heard a “thump” as though she struck an object in the

road. She believed that she was centered in her lane. Ms. Callier immediately felt

as though someone had grabbed her steering wheel and jerked her car to the right.

Ms. Callier does not recall how many times her car flipped or rolled. She believes

that her car flipped after it struck the culvert at Mr. Leger’s driveway.

After the accident, Ms. Callier spoke to the investigating police officer, who

asked her to provide a written statement. In that statement, she indicated that she

struck an object in the roadway. After Ms. Callier completed this brief written

statement, she, the investigating officer, and Mr. DiBenedetto walked over to the

scene of the accident and found one of the railroad crossties from Mr. Leger’s

driveway in the road. A tow truck driver removed the crosstie from the road.

2

Ms. Callier sued LCP, asserting that the roadway is unreasonably dangerous

and that LCP had actual or constructive notice of its defects, yet failed to correct

them.

The road

As previously stated, St. Esprit Road is a rural road. It has no fog line to

delineate its edge.

Troy Broussard used to live on St. Esprit Road, but not at the area of the

accident. Mr. Broussard described the road as deteriorating and narrow. He was

involved in an accident on St. Esprit Road in which his tire went over the edge of

the paved portion, causing him to veer off the roadway and hit a tree. The lane width

at the scene of Mr. Broussard’s accident was six feet; however, Mr. Broussard

conceded that his accident was not at the same location as Ms. Callier’s. Mr.

Broussard had complained to his councilman about the condition of St. Esprit Road.

Mr. Leger has lived on St. Esprit Road for about twenty years. At the scene

of the accident, there has been a cracked area “for a while;” however, he does not

recall whether that cracking was present before Ms. Callier’s accident. Mr. Leger

does not believe that the cracking has narrowed the lane widths. Other than this

particular area, Mr. Leger maintains, the road is fine. He stated that the area is

cracked due to gradual erosion into the drainage ditch.

Mr. Leger thinks there have been three accidents in the vicinity of his house,

but he cannot recall whether any accidents happened before Ms. Callier’s. He agrees

that LCP regularly repairs potholes and the like. He has never called LCP to

complain about the road.

Mr. Warren Abadie is the LCP Director of Traffic, Roads, and Bridges. He

oversees the Traffic Engineering, Sign, and Pavement Marking Divisions. LCP’s

3

total inventory of asphalt-paved roads exceeds 300 miles. Mr. Abadie estimates that

rural roads such as St. Esprit comprise fifty to one hundred of those miles.

St. Esprit Road does not meet the criteria for definition as a low-volume road.

It sees between 400 and 500 vehicles a day. The right of way is limited, so the

opportunities for widening the road would pose significant costs.2 The Manual on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices3 does not mandate either center striping or edge

striping, also known as a fog line, on roads such as St. Esprit; nevertheless, LCP has

center-striped the road. St. Esprit Road is eighteen feet wide.

LCP relies on citizen service requests to identify immediate repair needs.

Otherwise, roads are inspected regularly as part of the LCP overlay program. When

a citizen repair request is received, that information is entered into a program called

Cityworks. The program automatically refers that request to the maintenance

foreman, who would then route it to the labor foreman.

One such request was received by LCP on April 11, 2017, regarding erosion

of the road into the ditch. This request was forwarded to Mr. John Richard, then

streets foreman, with instructions that the entire road be inspected. An inspector

would mark areas in need of repair with white spray paint. The April 11 ticket was

returned the following day with the notation that it had been completed.

Inspectors can distinguish fresh asphalt breakage from older because newly

broken asphalt has a blacker color than an older break. Mr. Brian Smith, who was

the Streets Superintendent for LCP until shortly before Ms. Callier’s accident, was

shown a Google Maps Street View image of the area of the accident dated January

2017 and compared that photo with one taken by Mr. DiBenedetto. This Google

2
A major reconstruction costs between $1 million and $1.5 million per mile, plus the
expense of acquiring additional rights of way.
3
The dictates of the manual have been codified into law by reference. See, La.R.S. 32:235.
4

Maps image showed an area where asphalt had broken off. Compared to the photo

taken by Mr. DiBenedetto, Mr. Smith testified, the Google Maps image showed a

much smaller break.

Mr. Dwayne Meaux, who was a drainage labor foreman in 2017, testified

about the excavation of ditches along St. Esprit Road. According to Mr. Meaux, he

supervised the excavation of the area near Mr. Leger’s house, but that work was

performed on the ditch across the street and not the ditch in front of Mr. Leger’s

house. Mr. Meaux has witnessed drainage issues on St. Esprit Road causing

deterioration of the road, but not at the area of Ms. Callier’s accident.

Mr. John Richard is a retired labor foreman in the streets department. One of

his tasks was inspecting roads for areas that needed repair. He recalled the April 11,

2017, service request. He inspected the entire road on both sides. This took him

about two hours. Mr. Richard recalls that his inspection began right after lunch or

his break. He would mark repair spots with white spray paint. After the work was

finished, Mr. Richard would reinspect the repairs to ensure they had been done

properly.

Mr. Richard was shown the photos taken by Mr. DiBenedetto. He testified

that this “obvious” condition was the type of condition he was looking for when he

inspected St. Esprit Road. Mr. Richard testified that had this condition been present

on the day of his inspection, he would have marked it and seen to it that it was

repaired; therefore, he does not believe that the condition was present on April 11,

2017. However, on cross examination, Mr. Richard looked at the January 2017

Google Maps image and identified this condition as one that he would have had

repaired. The Google Maps image depicts a broken area that is smaller than the one

in Mr. DiBenedetto’s photograph. Also, the break in the DiBenedetto photo

appeared fresh to Mr. Richard.
5

Mr. James J. Valenta is a highway safety engineer and accident reconstruction

expert from Michigan retained by Ms. Callier to analyze the road conditions and

determine whether the proximate cause of her accident was the result of road

conditions.

Mr. Valenta utilized the guidelines for roadway design established by the

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

and the Manual to determine that St. Esprit Road in the area of the accident posed

an unreasonable risk of harm in that the lane was too narrow4, there was no fog line,

and no signs warned of the steep shoulder. Further, Mr. Valenta opined, LCP should

not have allowed Mr. Leger to maintain the driveway as he did; its vertical face

posed an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who might depart the roadway.

Instead, a sloped culvert should have been installed. Lastly, the foreslope of the

ditch, the area closest to the road, was too steep to allow an errant motorist to correct

her path back onto the roadway. That created a drop-off in excess of the AASHTO-

mandated two inches.

LCP retained the services of Mr. Vernon “Dean” Tekell, a traffic engineering

and accident reconstruction consultant from Lafayette, who was a traffic engineer

for LCP until 1998. Mr. Tekell was asked to reconstruct Ms. Callier’s accident.

Mr. Tekell looked at aerial photographs of St. Esprit Road, which indicated

that the road was constructed before 1958. The AASHTO standards were not

adopted into law until the 1960s, and the standards only require that roads be brought

up to modern standards when they undergo reconstruction. Therefore, the AASHTO

standards do not apply to the road.

4
In the sixty-one feet leading to the site of the wreck, the eastbound lane varied in width
between 16.8 feet and 18.1 feet, much of which, Mr. Valenta noted, is below the AASHTO
minimum of nine feet per travel lane.
6

Examining photographs of the accident scene, Mr. Tekell noted scraping of

the pavement to the west of the broken chunk of asphalt. He also noted the outline

of a wheel path. These indicated to Mr. Tekell that Ms. Callier’s vehicle left the

road approximately fifty feet before the alleged defect, which appeared fresh based

on the coloration. Mr. Tekell opined that the alleged defect, rather than causing the

accident, was caused by the accident. Therefore, the alleged defect did not exist for

Mr. Richard to have seen it in his inspection.

Ms. Callier’s car, a Kia Optima, has a very low center of gravity. Rarely does

a car with such a low center of gravity experience rollover at speeds less than 45

miles per hour. Mr. Tekell is convinced that, based on her speed and the physical

damage, Ms. Callier’s car rolled once and came to rest several feet before the tree

she claimed it hit; there was no evidence of tree bark transferred into a joint or crack

on the car, nor was there any “crush associated with it having hit a tree and bounced

off.” While there was a scar on the tree, it did not appear fresh to Mr. Tekell. If Ms.

Callier’s car indeed rolled or flipped three times, she would have been traveling

faster than she testified.

Mr. Tekell agreed with Mr. Abadie that a fog line was not required on St.

Esprit Road. The Manual prescribes a fog line on roads that see 4,000 vehicles a

day and are twenty feet wide. Mr. Tekell also disagreed with Mr. Valenta’s opinion

regarding a “clear zone.” In order to provide a clear zone, LCP would have to

acquire additional right of way. St. Esprit Road was “an old horse and buggy road

that was gravel at one time and was overlaid as-is as a travel surface.” As such, it

was never required to meet AASHTO standards.

Ms. Callier’s Kia was six feet, one inch wide. The lane she was traveling was

nine feet wide; thus, she had a foot-and-a-half on each side to negotiate along St.

Esprit Road. The cause of the accident, Mr. Tekell opined, was that Ms. Callier was
7

driving too far toward the edge of the pavement and her tire left the roadway. At a

speed of between thirty-four to forty-three miles per hour, Ms. Callier’s Kia would

have covered the distance from where it left the pavement to the culvert in about one

second. This would be consistent with Mr. DiBenedetto’s testimony. Ms. Callier’s

path described a scenario in which her vehicle left the roadway and she attempted to

steer back onto it but encountered the culvert before she could.

In addition to having a low center of gravity, the Kia only had ground

clearance of 5.1 inches; therefore, once her wheels left the roadway, it would have

made contact with the pavement only after the drop-off exceeded 5.1 inches. St.

Esprit Road has virtually no shoulder, so that would have happened early into the

event.

Mr. Tekell developed his analysis of the crash based solely upon the physical

evidence independent of what any witness might state.

Mr. Tekell testified that the cost of placing a fog line along St. Esprit Road

would be $20,000.00 to $21,000.00. He further opined that placing a fog line might

prove counterproductive because fog lines are intended to encourage drivers to drive

further to the left, and this road was so narrow that it could lead to other accidents.

The low speed, low traffic volume, and relatively narrow lane width would not make

placing a fog line on St. Esprit Road advisable.

The injuries

Immediately after the accident, Ms. Callier did not experience localized

complaints. She refused the offer by ambulance personnel to be transported to a

hospital. The next day, she “was sore from head to toe.” She went to a walk-in

clinic the following Monday with complaints of pain in her neck, low back,

shoulders, and left breast. Her all-over pain complaints resolved in about a week,

but her low back, shoulder, and neck pain persisted.
8

Ms. Callier treated with Barczyk Chiropractic until February 2018, when she

reported that she was pain-free. She later returned complaining of leg pain. She was

referred by Barczyk Chiropractic for an MRI and then to Dr. Roy Williams, a

Lafayette orthopedic surgeon.

Dr. Williams began treating Ms. Callier in June 2018. She complained of

intermittent burning pain and numbness in her left leg. The MRI ordered by Barczyk

showed degenerative discs and foraminal stenosis at the L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1

levels. The MRI also showed that Ms. Callier’s spine had retrolisthesis, which is a

malalignment of the spine, at two levels. Dr. Williams recommended physical

therapy, which provided Ms. Callier with relief of her low back pain but failed to

resolve her left leg pain.

Because Ms. Callier continued to experience leg pain, Dr. Williams

recommended that she undergo a lumbar epidural steroid injection, which is a

fluoroscopically guided injection intended to reduce inflammation of irritated nerves

at targeted locations.

This procedure was performed on October 15, 2018 and provided Ms. Callier

with “pretty good relief.” At her appointment in November 2018, she reported good

relief, but in January 2019 her leg pain had returned. Dr. Williams suggested a

second injection procedure, which was performed; however, the injection was given

at a different level of the lumbar spine and did not result in the same quality of relief

as the first.

In April 2019, Ms. Callier’s leg pain persisted. By July, though, she had

begun working with a personal trainer and her leg pain had been reduced to

intermittent episodes. In October 2019, Dr. Williams discussed a third injection,

which was never performed.

9

By July 2020, Ms. Callier reported that she had experienced a great deal of

relief from working with her personal trainer, but by then her gym had closed and

her pain was returning. Dr. Williams’ last two appointments with Ms. Callier

occurred on October 14, 2020, but she returned on October 22, 2020, with her leg

pain significantly worse. A second MRI was performed that showed no changes

from the earlier one. Dr. Williams felt that all non-surgical options were exhausted,

and he recommended that Ms. Callier undergo a three-level lumbar decompression

and intervertebral fusion.

Dr. Williams agrees that Ms. Callier will require core muscle strengthening

for life but does not think that will resolve her complaints. He bases his opinions on

the history Ms. Callier gave plus the lack of any medical evidence to the contrary.

He admitted on cross examination that he was not aware that Ms. Callier had been

discharged from Barczyk Chiropractic in February 2018 and had indicated at the

time that she was pain-free. He also admitted that at Ms. Callier’s October 22, 2020,

appointment, his examination uncovered only subjective complaints. Her gait,

lumbar lordosis, range of motion, strength, reflexes, and sensory examinations were

all normal.

Dr. Neil Romero is a Lafayette orthopedic surgeon who performed an

independent medical examination of Ms. Callier at LCP’s request. His examination

elicited normal findings. He opined that Ms. Callier sustained an aggravation of pre-

existing degenerative conditions. His recommendation is that Ms. Callier undergo

physical therapy and continue with strengthening exercises.

Ms. Callier had undergone breast surgeries in 2009 and 2014. These were

performed by Dr. Kenneth Odinet, a Lafayette plastic surgeon. Ms. Callier denied

any complaints about her breasts between the second surgery and the accident. She

maintained at trial that her left breast had been bruised in the accident. However,
10

she testified that her left breast became very sensitive and hard. After she began to

exercise with the personal trainer, Ms. Callier testified, she noticed that the shape of

the left breast had changed. She did not seek medical attention for this complaint,

though, until August 30, 2018, almost a year after the accident, when she returned

to Dr. Odinet.

Dr. Odinet referred Ms. Callier for a mammogram and ultrasound, which

demonstrated no rupture of her left implant. He advised her that an MRI would be

a better tool for determining whether her implant was ruptured, but she never had

the procedure performed.

On initial examination, Dr. Odinet found that Ms. Callier had a grade two

capsule.5 He noted that she had a slight collapse of the left breast at the 1:00 and

2:00 positions. A collapse usually occurs when the capsule has torn. Dr. Odinet

advised the above MRI and also the possibility of removing her implant and

performing a lift procedure. Neither of those was performed. Without the MRI, Dr.

Odinet would not express an opinion on whether the collapse of Ms. Callier’s

capsule was related to her motor vehicle accident.

Not so Dr. Darrell Henderson, another Lafayette plastic surgeon, whom Ms.

Callier saw after Dr. Odinet, who has recommended that Ms. Callier undergo a

revision to repair the collapse, which he opines frequently result from motor vehicle

accidents. According to Dr. Henderson, Ms. Callier’s left breast has a definite “lump”

and exhibits asymmetry compared with the right one. The torn capsule has allowed

the left breast to migrate upward and outward. This will need to be surgically

corrected at a cost of about $11,000.00. Dr. Henderson dismissed the lapse of time

5
According to Dr. Odinet, any time a foreign body, such as a breast implant, is placed into
the human body, the natural reaction is to enclose that foreign body. The enclosure of such a
foreign body is a capsule. Capsules are graded on their texture from one to four, with one feeling
like a perfectly normal breast, and four feeling like it contains a hard shell accompanied by pain.
11

between the accident and Ms. Callier’s first documented complaints of pain as

“masking,” a phenomenon in which more intense pain in other areas suppresses the

lesser sensation of pain in others.

Ms. Callier is a mapper by vocation. She typically works as an independent

contractor creating maps for clients in the petroleum industry. Her last such work

was for David McKinney Drafting Services in Lafayette. Mr. McKinney described

Ms. Callier as an expert with the ArcGis software he uses to create maps. She also

learned to map using other software during the term of her contract with McKinney.

However, her injuries from this accident forced Ms. Callier to take frequent breaks.

Ms. Callier found other work; otherwise, she would have been laid off because of

the downturn in the petroleum industry.

Action of the trial court

A bench trial of the matter was held on March 22- 24, 2021. Additional expert

witnesses were heard in addition to those discussed above, but a discussion of the

substance of their testimonies is obviated by the trial court’s ruling in this matter and

the status of the appeals.6 Following the close of evidence, the trial court took the

matter under advisement. The trial court issued written reasons for judgment on

April 19, 2021, and the judgment was signed on June 11, 2021. That judgment

awarded Ms. Callier $232,651.56, which consisted of $200,000.00 in general

damages, $16,051.56 in past medical expenses, $11,000.00 in future medical

expenses for breast surgery7, and $5,600.00 in lost wages.

The trial court’s written reasons found that the broken asphalt represented an

unreasonably dangerous condition that existed prior to the April 11, 2017, inspection

by Mr. Richard, as demonstrated by the Google Maps Street View photo of January

6
Two vocational rehabilitation experts and an economist also testified.
7
Pursuant to La.R.S. 13:5106, that money was ordered placed into a reversionary trust.
12

2017. Thus, the defect existed long enough to impute constructive knowledge of the

defect to LCP. The trial court found that Ms. Callier and Mr. DiBenedetto gave

credible testimony about the events of that night, and this credible testimony refuted

the expert testimony of Mr. Tekell’s reconstruction of the accident. No comparative

fault was found on the part of Ms. Callier, as the trial court could find no authority

for the proposition that a driver has a duty to drive in the center of her lane.

Ms. Callier sustained an aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative disc

condition in her low back, the trial court found. It further found that she failed to

prove that this aggravation persisted beyond July 2019, when her symptoms were

being managed by her fitness training and did not worsen after the pandemic closed

her gym. While Ms. Callier experiences occasional flare-ups, these would have

occurred as a natural progression of her degenerative low back condition.

Accordingly, the trial court declined to award her future medical expenses for the

back surgery Dr. Williams proposed.

The tearing of the capsule of Ms. Callier’s left breast implant was found by

the trial court to be causally related to the accident despite the passage of time. Both

Dr. Henderson and Dr. Odinet observed a tear in the left breast capsule.

The trial court found that Ms. Callier missed 224 hours of work between

November 2017 and August 2018 due to her injuries. Time she lost afterward

appeared to the trial court to be a consequence of market conditions in the petroleum

industry.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

LCP asserts the following as error:

1. The trial court erred in finding an unreasonably dangerous condition
existed at the time of Callier’s September 9, 2017 accident at 1025
St. Esprit Road that LCG had actual or constructive knowledge of
and that was the cause of the accident.

13

2. The trial court erred in assessing 100% liability to LCG.

3. The trial court erred in permitting and relying on accident
reconstruction testimony from James Valenta when Valenta was not
requested to nor provided an opinion regarding accident
reconstruction and his report did not include any opinions regarding
accident reconstruction.

4. The trial court erred in awarding Callier $200,000.00 in general
damages.

5. The trial court erred in awarding Callier $11,000.00 for future
medical expenses related to breast surgery.

6. The trial court erred in assessing all costs of the proceedings against
LCG.

Ms. Callier answered the appeal and assigns as error the general damage

award and the award for future medical expense regarding the finding that the lumbar

fusion surgery was not necessitated by the accident.

ANALYSIS

Standards of review

The bases for liability of a public body for unreasonably dangerous road or

street conditions are found in La.R.S. 9:2800 and, by extension, La.Civ.Code art.

2317. Findings of fact under La.R.S. 9:2800 are reviewed by the court of appeal

under the manifest error standard. LeBlanc v. City of Abbeville, 18-206 (La.App. 3

Cir. 10/17/18), 259 So.3d 372. The determination of whether an accident was a

cause-in-fact of a plaintiff’s injuries is also reviewed under the manifest error rule.

Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La.1987). Allocations of comparative fault are also

reviewed under the manifest error standard. Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins.

Co., 469 So.2d 967 (La.1985). The existence of a causal relationship between an

accident and a plaintiff’s alleged injuries is similarly reviewed. Housley v. Cerise,

579 So.2d 973 (La.1991).

[The manifest error] test dictates that a reviewing court must do
more than simply review the record for some evidence which supports
14

or controverts the trial court’s finding. The reviewing court must
review the record in its entirety to determine whether the trial court’s
finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.

Nevertheless, the issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not
whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder’s
conclusion was a reasonable one. Even though an appellate court may
feel its own evaluations and inferences are more reasonable than the
factfinder’s, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable
inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review where conflict
exists in the testimony.

Stobart v. State through Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 617 So. 2d 880, 882 (La.

1993)(citations omitted). “[W]here there are two permissible views of the evidence,

the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous.” S.J. v.

Lafayette Par. Sch. Bd., 09-2195, p. 13 (La. 7/6/10), 41 So.3d 1119, 1127(emphasis

added). We cannot simply look to the trial court’s written reasons to see whether it

was wrong but must look to the whole record to make that determination.

The decision to admit or exclude expert testimony is reviewed under the

abuse-of-discretion standard. Bethley v. Keller Const., 01-1085 (La.App. 1 Cir.

12/20/02), 836 So.2d 397, writ denied, 03-228 (La. 4/21/03), 841 So.2d 792.

Assessments of costs of court are similarly reviewed to determine whether the trial

court abused its discretion. Roach v. State, Dep’t of Transp. and Dev., 20-211, 20-

212 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/22/21) 329 So.3d 974, writ denied, 21-1527 (La. 1/12/22) ___

So.3d ___. And finally, awards of damages will only be disturbed on appeal when

there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., 341 So.2d

332 (La.1976).

A conclusion represents and abuse of discretion when it is “reached

capriciously or in an arbitrary manner.” Torrance v. Caddo Par. Police Jury, 119

So.2d 617, 619 (La.App. 2 Cir.1960).

15

Liability of LCP

Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2800 provides, in pertinent part:

A. A public entity is responsible under Civil Code Article 2317 for
damages caused by the condition of buildings within its care and
custody.

....

C. Except as provided for in Subsections A and B of this Section,
no person shall have a cause of action based solely upon liability
imposed under Civil Code Article 2317 against a public entity
for damages caused by the condition of things within its care and
custody unless the public entity had actual or constructive notice
of the particular vice or defect which caused the damage prior to
the occurrence, and the public entity has had a reasonable
opportunity to remedy the defect and has failed to do so.

D. Constructive notice shall mean the existence of facts which infer
actual knowledge.

The elements a plaintiff must prove to establish liability under La.R.S. 9:2800 have

been enunciated as follows:

[T]he plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant owned or had custody of
the thing that caused the damage; (2) the thing was defective in that it
created an unreasonable risk of harm to others; (3) the defendant had
actual or constructive knowledge of the defect or unreasonable risk of
harm and failed to take corrective action within a reasonable time; and
(4) causation.

Ambrose v. City of New Iberia, 08-1197, p. 2 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 11 So. 3d

34, 37.

A municipal authority is deemed to have constructive notice if the
defect existed for such a period of time that by exercise of ordinary care
and diligence, the municipal authority must have known of its
existence, and the municipal authority had a reasonable opportunity to
guard the public from injury by remedy of the defect.

Id.

The fact that LCP had custody and control over St. Esprit Road was well

established.

16

Whether a thing presents an unreasonable risk of harm is a matter
particular to the circumstances of each case; our analysis in this case
must consider the uses for which sidewalks are designed and intended,
because “the requirement of reasonable safety implies reasonable
safety for any lawful or proper purpose.” (emphasis added). U.S.F. &
G. Co. v. State, Dept. of Highways, 339 So.2d 780, 785 (La.1976); see
also Oster, 582 So.2d at 1289; Hardie v. Bestway Grocery, 620 So.2d
937 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 626 So.2d 1164 (La.1993).

Morell v. City of Breaux Bridge, 94-1378, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/31/95), 660 So.2d

882, 884, writ denied, 95-2608 (La. 1/12/96), 666 So.2d 321.

The trial court discounted Mr. Valenta’s opinions regarding whether the

defect was unreasonably dangerous, but nonetheless found that the lack of signage,

additional lighting, or a fog line, coupled with the narrowness of the travel lane posed

an unreasonable risk of harm. The trial court stated that it “knows of no requirement

for driving in the center of the lane, and it does not appear unreasonable for a

motorist to avoid driving near the centerline of a dark, narrow roadway where

oncoming vehicles might be encountered.” Regarding the trial court’s last

observation, we will further consider this contention when we discuss the allocation

of fault. Louisiana law has long held that the duty to maintain road shoulders

encompasses the risk that an errant motorist might stray off the road. See Bozeman

v. State, 34,430 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/4/01), 787 So.2d 357, writ denied, 01-1341 (La.

6/29/01), 794 So.2d 813 (in which the court of appeal found that a drop-off of two

the three inches constituted an unreasonable risk of harm). We find that the trial

court did not manifestly err in finding that the defect posed an unreasonable risk of

harm.

There are two permissible views of the evidence regarding constructive notice.

The January 2017 Google Maps Street View image of a defect in the same area as

the asphalt break involved in this accident leads to a permissible inference that the

17

defect existed prior to Mr. Richard’s inspection of the road.8 Another permissible

inference is that the LCP crew repaired the defect after Mr. Richard’s accident, and

the asphalt was broken when Ms. Callier’s car left the roadway. Two experts, Mr.

Tekell and Mr. Valenta, arrived at differing conclusions regarding how long the

defect appeared to exist. One reason given by the trial court in its ruling was that

Mr. Tekell’s opinions differed from the testimonies of Ms. Callier and Mr.

DiBenedetto, whom the trial court found credible. A choice between these

permissible views cannot be manifestly erroneous. S.J., 41 So.3d 1119. A finding

founded on credibility is given the utmost deference. Stobart, 617 So.2d 880. Even

if one disregards the testimony of Mr. Broussard,9 the record still supports the trial

court’s conclusion that the defect existed for such a period of time that LCP should

have discovered and corrected the condition.

Ms. Callier and Mr. DiBenedetto both testified that the accident occurred in

the immediate vicinity of the defect. The only evidence to the contrary was

presented by Mr. Tekell, who identified scrape marks more than fifty feet from the

defect, which he opined were caused by the undercarriage of Ms. Callier’s car when

it departed from the roadway long before it reached the area of the defect. The trial

court found that this conflicted with the Callier-DiBenedetto account, which it found

credible. The trial court found no scrape marks prior to the defect. We find no

manifest error in its conclusions.

The trial court found no basis for comparative fault because Ms. Callier’s

vehicle encountered the defect abruptly. As noted above, the trial court indicated

8
This court’s review of the before- and after-accident photos appears to show that the
defect is depicted in both.
9
The trial court’s written reasons on the issue of constructive notice does not mention Mr.
Broussard’s testimony. It pinned constructive notice solely on a comparison of the Google Maps
Street View photo with the DiBenedetto photo.
18

that it was aware of no duty to drive in the center of the lane and particularly not

near the centerline of the road because of the chance that oncoming motorists might

be encountered. We do not entirely agree.

Ms. Callier testified that she was not thoroughly familiar with the road. Yet

she had lived in the area for three years and possessed sufficient familiarity with it

to know that it considerably shortened the drive from Pogie’s to her house and

avoided heavier traffic encountered along other routes. Mr. DiBenedetto testified

that Ms. Callier’s headlights sufficiently illuminated the road. And we disagree that

a chance encounter with oncoming cars mitigated against Ms. Callier driving further

to the left of her lane in the absence of that circumstance presenting itself. There

were no oncoming cars, and Ms. Callier was familiar with the road; if she observed

an oncoming vehicle, she should have easily been able to steer somewhat to the right

and still not encounter this defect, which occupied a very small portion of the very

far right of the travel lane. A motorist is charged with the duty of exercising

reasonable control over her vehicle, including being watchful for road hazards and

staying within her lane of travel. Foster v. ConAgra Poultry, Inc., 95-793 (La.App.

3 Cir. 2/14/96), 670 So.2d 471, writ denied, 96-645 (La. 4/26/96), 672 So.2d 674.

The operation of her vehicle too far to the right, given her knowledge of the road and

the dark nighttime conditions, constitutes comparative fault.

“When an appellate court finds an apportionment of fault by the trial court

clearly erroneous, it should raise or lower it to the highest or lowest point reasonably

within the trial court’s discretion.” Burtner v. Lafayette Par. Consol. Gov’t, 14-1180,

p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/15/15), 176 So.3d 1056, 1063, writ denied, 15-938 (La.

6/19/15), 169 So.3d 350 (citing Clement v. Fry, 95-1119, 95-1165 (La. 1/16/96), 666

So.2d 607). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the lowest percentage

19

of fault that could be assessed to Ms. Callier is twenty-five percent, and we amend

the trial court’s judgment to assess her with that percentage of comparative fault.

We have already outlined Ms. Callier’s relevant medical treatment history

following the accident. LCP and Ms. Callier appeal elements of the judgment related

to future medical treatment: LCP appeals the trial court’s award of future medical

for breast surgery while Ms. Callier appeals the denial of an award for back surgery.

Again, both the necessity of breast surgery or back surgery is reviewed under

the manifest error standard. Therefore, in order to reverse, we must conclude that

there is “no reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s conclusion, and the finding

must be clearly wrong.” Menard v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 09-1869, p. 14 (La. 3/16/10),

31 So.3d 996, 1007 (emphasis in original). We find no manifest error in either the

award of future medical expenses for the breast surgery, which was necessitated by

the capsule tear that no doctor was willing to say was not related to the accident, or

the denial of future medical expenses for lumbar fusion surgery, given that the

condition of Ms. Callier’s back pre-dated the accident and the fact that she achieved

relief through exercise, which Dr. Romero has opined is what she needs. We decline

to reverse either ruling of the trial court.

LCP maintains that the general damage award should be reduced to

$40,000.00 at most. Its position is based upon the contention that Ms. Callier

suffered, at most, a year-and-a-half aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative disc

condition in her back. This position ignores the fact that in addition to her low back,

Ms. Callier also sustained a torn or ruptured capsule of her left breast implant. It

also ignores the fact that the aggravation of Ms. Callier’s back condition caused

symptoms to a condition that was previously asymptomatic. We do not find that the

trial court’s award was made arbitrarily and can find no abuse of discretion.

20

“Unless the judgment provides otherwise, costs shall be paid by the party cast,

and may be taxed by a rule to show cause. Except as otherwise provided by law, the

court may render judgment for costs, or any part thereof, against any party, as it may

consider equitable.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 1920. The allocation of costs, then, is

within the trial court’s broad discretion and will only be reversed on a showing that

its discretion was abused. Schneider v. Mayo, 94-527 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/94), 647

So.2d 606, writ denied, 95-27 (La. 2/17/95), 650 So.2d 254. LCP argues that

because it should not be cast with liability, it should not be assessed with costs.

Given that we affirm the trial court’s ruling on liability, amended to assess

comparative fault, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

CONCLUSION

The trial court did not manifestly err in finding that an unreasonably

dangerous defect existed on St. Esprit Road, that the defect was a cause-in-fact of

Ms. Callier’s accident, or that LCP had constructive notice of the defect. The trial

court did manifestly err in finding Ms. Callier free from fault, and we amend its

judgment to assess her with twenty-five percent comparative fault. We affirm the

trial court’s awards of general damages and future medical expenses for Ms.

Callier’s breast surgery. We affirm the trial court’s decision to not award Ms. Callier

future medical expenses for low back surgery. We affirm the trial court’s assessment

of court costs.

All costs of this appeal, in the amount of $15,884.65, are taxed as costs to

defendant/appellant, the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government.

AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

21