Catherine Williams, Indv. and Ronnie Williams, Indv. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Ct

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

23-601

CATHERINE WILLIAMS, INDV. AND RONNIE
WILLIAMS, INDV.

VERSUS

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY
OF CT, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 265,897
HONORABLE MONIQUE RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

GARY J. ORTEGO
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Van H. Kyzar, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Gary J. Ortego, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Robert L. Bussey
Lewis O. Lauve, Jr.
Bussey & Lauve
P. O. Box 8778
Alexandria, LA 71306
(318) 449-1937
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc.
Steven D. Smith
Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut

Jerry L. Lavespere, Jr.
Attorney at Law
1805 Jackson St.
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 443-9926
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Ronnie Williams
Catherine Williams

Kevin L. Camel
Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel, Wilson & Brown, LLC
723 Broad St.
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 436-6611
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Ronnie Williams
Catherine Williams

ORTEGO, Judge.

This matter arises out of a motor vehicle accident between the plaintiff/driver

traveling in the right lane and the defendant/ambulance driver traveling in the left

lane of two merging lanes on Broadway Avenue in Alexandria, Louisiana. After

trial, the jury found the defendant/ambulance driver and the employer ambulance

service at fault for the accident. The jury awarded the plaintiff, inter alia, damages

for future medical expenses and the spouse of the plaintiff damages for loss of

consortium. Defendants filed a JNOV which was denied. Thereafter, both plaintiffs

and defendants appealed the judgment. On appeal, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 28, 2018, Catherine Williams was driving her vehicle on

Broadway Avenue in Alexandria, Louisiana. Broadway Avenue is a four-lane

highway as it crosses over I-49. Catherine was traveling north bound in the right

lane.

Steven Smith was driving an ambulance, within the course and scope of his

employment with Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc., in the left lane of Broadway

Avenue also traveling north bound. The ambulance driven by Smith was insured by

Travelers Indemnity Company CT.

Broadway Avenue, after it crosses over I-49, changes from a four-lane

highway into a two-lane highway. As the two northbound lanes merged into one

lane, the front right of the ambulance, driven by Smith, collided with the left rear of

Catherine’s vehicle.

Catherine Williams and her husband, Ronnie Williams (the Williamses) filed

suit for damages from the October 2018 vehicle accident against Steven Smith,

Acadian Ambulance, and Travelers Indemnity Company CT (collectively

“Travelers”).

A three-day jury trial commenced on November 29, 2022. At the conclusion

of the trial, a unanimous jury found Steven Smith forty percent (40%) and Acadian

Ambulance sixty percent (60%) at fault for the accident, with allocations of zero

percent (0%) fault to Catherine Williams and an unnamed third party. The jury

awarded Catherine Williams, inter alia, $350,000.00 for future medical expenses

and Ronnie Williams $60,000.00 for loss of consortium.

Travelers filed a JNOV, which was denied. Travelers and the Williamses both

appeal the judgment with Travelers asserting six assignments of error and the

Williamses asserting one.

TRAVELERS’ ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
1. The decision of the jury to assess fault on Steven Smith for causing the
subject incident was manifestly erroneous and clearly wrong given the
amount of uncontested and/or unrefuted evidence presented at trial, all of
which was clearly ignored by the jury.

2. The jury committed manifest error when it found the accident at issue was
caused, in part, by defendant, Acadian Ambulance, when there was no
factual basis to support said decision.

3. Alternatively, the jury committed manifest error when it failed to allocate
any fault to the plaintiff, Catherine Williams, given her admissions that she
knew the ambulance was there and she knew her lane of travel was
narrowing, coupled with the unrefuted evidence that Williams was driving
faster than the ambulance and was overtaking the ambulance just prior to
and during the accident at issue.

4. The jury committed manifest error when it failed to allocate any fault to the
unnamed third party, which turned out to be the Department of
Transportation and Development (“DOTD”) for failing to appropriately
sign or mark the portion of Broadway Avenue leading up to and including
the [area] of the subject accident.

5. The jury award of damages to plaintiff, Catherine Williams, especially
future medicals, is excessive and not supported by the evidence presented.

6. The jury award of damages to plaintiff, Ronnie Williams, is excessive and
not supported by the evidence presented.

2

THE WILLIAMSES’ ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

1. The jury failed to award the full amount of Catherine Williams’ future
medical expenses as proven at trial.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Travelers’ first four assignments of error question the jury’s allocation of

fault. In Layssard v. State, Dep’t of Public Safety and Corrections, 07-78, p. 3

(La.App. 3 Cir. 8/8/07), 963 So.2d 1053, 1057-58, writ denied, 07-1821

(La.11/9/07), 967 So.2d 511, this court set forth the standard of review for a trier of

fact’s apportionment of fault:

The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Duncan v. Kansas City
Southern Railway Co., 00-66, pp. 10–11 (La.10/30/00), 773 So.2d 670,
680–81, set forth the standard for reviewing comparative fault
determinations as follows:

This Court has previously addressed the allocation
of fault and the standard of review to be applied by
appellate courts reviewing such determinations. Finding
the same considerations applicable to the fault allocation
process as are applied in quantum assessments, we
concluded “the trier of fact is owed some deference in
allocating fault” since the finding of percentages of fault
is also a factual determination. Clement v. Frey, 95-1119
(La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 607, 609, 610. As with other
factual determinations, the trier of fact is vested with much
discretion in its allocation of fault. Id.

Therefore, a trier of fact’s allocation of fault is
subject to the manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong
standard of review. A trial judge’s findings of fact will not
be disturbed unless they are manifestly erroneous or
clearly wrong. Stobart v. State, through Dep’t of Transp.
& Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). “Absent ‘manifest
error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong,’ the jury or trial court’s
findings of fact may not be disturbed on appeal.” Sistler v.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106, 1111 (La.1990). “If
the trial court or jury’s findings are reasonable in light of
the record reviewed in its entirety, the court of appeal may
not reverse, even though convinced that had it been sitting
as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence
differently.” Id. at 1112.

3

In Travelers’ final two assigned errors and the Williamses’ sole assigned

error, the issue presented is the appropriateness of the jury’s damage awards. The

jury’s findings that the Williamses were entitled to damages is a finding of fact and

subject to the manifest error standard of review. Likewise, the jury’s damage amount

awarded to Catherine Williams for future medical expenses is subject to the manifest

error standard of review. “Absent ‘manifest error’ or unless it is ‘clearly wrong,’ the

jury or trial court’s findings of fact may not be disturbed on appeal.” Sistler, 558

So.2d at 1111. A trier of fact is afforded much discretion in the assessment of

damages, and the adequacy of the award is determined by the circumstances of that

case. Bentley v. Fanguy, 09-822 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/10), 48 So.3d 381, writ denied,

10-2854 (La. 2/25/11), 58 So.3d 457.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

I. Travelers’ Alleged Errors Numbers One through Four – Allocation of Fault

Travelers’ first four assignments of error allege manifest error by the jury in

its fault allocations to Steven Smith and Acadian Ambulance and the lack of fault

allocations to Catherine Williams and the DOTD. These assignments are all subject

to the same standard of review. As such, we will address them together.

A. Steven Smith and Catherine Williams – Allocation of Fault

In Travelers’ first assignment of error, it contends that the jury was manifestly

erroneous for assessing fault to Steven Smith (Smith) for causing the accident “given

the amount of uncontested and/or unrefuted evidence presented at trial.”

Alternatively, in their third assignment of error, Travelers asserts that the jury

committed manifest error when it failed to allocate any fault to Catherine Williams

(“Catherine”).

4

“A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane

and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such

movement can be made with safety.” La.R.S. 32:79(1). Drivers are presumed to be

negligent when they cross into another lane of travel and strike a vehicle traveling

in its lane of travel. Thibodeaux v. Comeaux, 11-127 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/15/11), 69

So.3d 674.

In the case before us, Broadway Avenue, after it crosses over I-49, merges

from a four-lane highway to a two-lane highway. Evidence in the record supports a

finding that, immediately prior to this accident, Smith was traveling in the left

northbound lane while Catherine was traveling in the right northbound lane. Prior

to the merging of the two lanes, there was signage indicating that the left, northbound

lane, occupied by Smith, ended, and the right, northbound lane, occupied by

Catherine, continued. Here, as the two northbound lanes merged into one lane, the

front right of the ambulance driven by Smith collided with the left rear of Catherine’s

vehicle. Thus, a finding by the jury that it was incumbent on Smith to merge over

to the right lane when he could safely do so is reasonable.

Key evidence in the record supporting the jury’s allocation of fault is a video

of the accident as it transpired. The ambulance driven by Smith was equipped with

a dash camera that recorded both the driver, passenger, and the driver’s view of the

roadway through the windshield. In viewing the video, and despite Catherine’s

headlights being visible on Smith’s right neither he nor his passenger are ever seen

checking the right lane prior to the collision between the two vehicles. Additionally,

the video of Smith’s view outside his windshield clearly depicts that the left lane,

Smith’s Lane, was ending, while the right lane, Catherine’s lane, continued as

indicated by the double yellow lines, thus steering Smith to safely merge into

Catherine’s lane.
5

The record also contains multiple photographs that corroborate the video

evidence. The photographs show signage and markings on the roadway that indicate

the left lane, which Smith occupied, ended, and thus it was incumbent upon Smith

to merge into the right lane, occupied by Catherine, when that movement could be

safely accomplished.

Travelers argues that its evidence proves that Smith was free from fault.

Specifically, the testimony of its expert, Jason Jupe, that Smith never veered to his

right and that the geometry of Broadway Avenue was such that, at the point of the

contact between the two vehicles, Broadway Avenue was one big lane or two lanes.

Additionally, Travelers asserts that Jason Jupe’s opinion that Catherine was

exceeding the speed limit by one to two miles per hour prior to the accident and that

Catherine allegedly acknowledged she saw the ambulance next to her as she drove

by establishes that Catherine was at fault in causing the accident.

However, two experts, Jay Gallagher, an accident reconstructionist, and Dale

Craig, a representative of the DOTD, both testified and opined that Smith was solely

at fault for causing this accident. Specifically, Jay Gallagher opined that Smith’s

failure to safely merge into the right lane, before his lane ended, caused the collision

with Catherine’s vehicle. Jay Gallagher further testified that Smith’s inattentiveness

was also a cause of the accident, specifically mentioning Smith’s use of the laptop

while driving. Dale Craig opined that the signage present on the day of the accident

indicated that left lane, which Smith occupied, ended, and therefore he was to safely

merge right with into Catherine’s favored lane of travel, thus having to give

Catherine the right of way.

The video, photographs, and expert testimony provide sufficient evidence to

find that Smith’s failure to safely merge into Catherine’s favored lane when his lane

ended, and his failure to yield the right of way to Catherine, along with his
6

inattentiveness, were the causes of the accident. Accordingly, we affirm the jury’s

allocation of fault to Smith and its decision to allocate no fault to Catherine.

Travelers may be correct that some of the evidence could be interpreted to

allocate fault differently between Smith and Catherine. However, this evidence

merely conflicts with the other evidence adduced at trial, as cited above, showing

fault by Smith and no fault by Catherine. Moreover, the standard of review compels

this court to determine whether the jury’s findings are reasonable in light of the

record reviewed in its entirety. Sistler, 558 So.2d 1106. As stated in Stobart, 617

So.2d at 883, “where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder’s

choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.”

Given the above, we find that a reasonable view of the record in its entirety

shows that Smith was at fault for this accident while Catherine is free from fault.

Catherine’s lane continued while Smith’s ended, thus Catherine had the “favored

lane.” This placed the burden on Smith to safely merge into Catherine’s favored

lane prior to the front right of Smith’s ambulance contacting the back left of

Catherine’s vehicle. Further, the video evidence in the record dictates a finding that

Smith failed to properly ascertain whether it was safe to merge into Catherine’s

favored lane prior to this accident. Here, the jury heard conflicting evidence, with

both lay and expert opinions, and assessed fault to Smith and none to Catherine.

Accordingly, Travelers’ assignments of error related to the allocation of fault

between Steven Smith and Catherine Williams are without merit.

B. Acadian Ambulance – Allocation of Fault

In its second assignment of error Travelers contends that the jury’s allocation

of fault to Acadian Ambulance was unreasonable. It is well established that

employers are directly liable for the damages caused by their employees as a result

7

of the employer’s failure to train and supervise the employees. Roberts v. Benoit,

605 So.2d 1032 (La.1991).

Here, Smith testified that he completed some driving training the day he was

hired five years prior to the accident in October of 2013. When asked if Smith was

familiar with Acadian Ambulance’s motor vehicle safety policy, Smith indicated

that he knew of one, but it has been a while since he had read it. The motor vehicle

safety policy which came into effect in October 2018, mandated that all employees

in Emergency Medical Services were to complete a Low Force Driving Course.

Smith was unsure if the training course he completed when he was hired in 2013

was the same as the one that became effective in 2018. The Acadian Ambulance

safety policy, including the requirement for completion of the Low Force Driving

Course, was entered into evidence by the Williamses. However, Smith did testify

that he was aware that he was to observe all traffic laws applicable to any motorist

on the roads including signaling when attempting a lane change, observing traffic

around the vehicle before attempting to change lanes, etc.

Further, in the video discussed above, a laptop is visible on the dashboard of

the ambulance facing Smith. At the time of the accident, Acadian Ambulance

provided those laptops for the ambulance to get calls for their emergencies, such as

from 9-1-1, and for GPS directions to the location of the emergency. Smith testified

that, as the driver, he would periodically look at the laptop. Additionally, Acadian

Ambulance’s required use of laptops by individuals while driving their ambulances

can reasonably be found to constitute negligence on behalf of the company and a

basis to allocate fault to Acadian Ambulance. Further, as discussed previously, Jay

Gallagher, testified that Smith’s inattentiveness was a cause of the accident and

specifically mentioned Smith’s use of the laptop while driving at the time of this

accident.
8

Thus, we find that a reasonable jury could find that the testimony of Smith

that he was unsure of the last time he read the Acadian Ambulance motor vehicle

safety policy, along with Acadian Ambulance’s required use of laptops by

individuals driving their ambulances, provides a reasonable basis to find a failure of

Acadian Ambulance to train and supervise its employees. Here again, the jury heard

conflicting evidence and expert opinions and assessed fault to Smith and Acadian

Ambulance only. Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error.

C. Unnamed Third Party – Allocation of Fault

Finally, Travelers’ fourth assignment of error addresses the jury’s failure to

allocate any fault to the Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”)

for failing to appropriately sign or mark the roadway near the accident. The only

DOTD-related evidence produced by Travelers in the record is that the sign

indicating that the left lane was to merge with the right had often been changed

within months of the trial and even during trial. However, Dale Craig, an expert and

representative of the DOTD, testified that the sign present on the day of the accident

was appropriate, i.e. that the left lane was to merge with the right lane. This

testimony alone provides a reasonable basis for the jury to find no fault by the DOTD

in causing the accident. Additionally, the video of the accident indicates that Smith

was not looking at or towards any signs present that night. Rather, at the time of this

accident, Smith was alternatively looking forward and glancing at his laptop.

Finally, it is clear from the record that not only the merge right sign, some five

hundred feet prior to the accident, but also the lane markings in front of Smith’s lane,

indicated that Smith’s vehicle was to merge right as his lane of travel was to end.

Thus, a finding of no fault by the DOTD is reasonable.

9

In summary, given the above, we find no manifest error by the jury in its

allocations of fault in this case. Each allocation was reasonable as each has sufficient

support in the record.

II. Travelers’ Alleged Errors Numbers Five and Six – Excessive Damage Awards

In its fifth assignment of error, Travelers alleges that the jury award of

damages to Catherine, especially future medicals, was excessive. In its final

assignment of error, Travelers asserts that the damages to Ronnie Williams

(“Ronnie”) for loss of consortium were excessive and not supported by the evidence

presented.

A. Catherine Williams – Damages

Regarding Catherine Williams, Travelers points to evidence in the record that

she had a history of back pain prior to the subject incident. In brief, Travelers

outlines how Catherine’s pain complaints were similar to those she had in the past.

However, as above, we are compelled by the standard of review to determine

whether a reasonable basis exists for the jury’s findings, not whether a reasonable

basis exists for a point of view different than that of the jury. Travelers’ main

objection to the award was for future medical expenses.

The medical records presented to the jury contain the results of an MRI

Catherine underwent on February 4, 2019. The results indicate that she has two

bulging discs in her lower back at L3-L4 and L4-L5. Dr. Gassan Chiban, an

interventional pain doctor and anesthesiologist, testified that Catherine first treated

for pain resulting from the accident with Dr. Leglue, her primary care physician,

before she was referred to him. According to Dr. Chiban, another MRI from

September 3, 2019, indicated that Catherine had a disc bulge at L2-L3 in addition to

those at L3-L4 and L4-L5. He related the pain from these bulges to the accident.

10

Further, Dr. Chiban opined that Catherine would have to undergo

interventional pain management for the rest of her life at an estimated cost of

$457,283.00 to $812,183.00.

We find the objective evidence of injury suffered by Catherine in the form of

MRIs, coupled with the expert medical testimony directly relating those injuries to

the accident, provides ample evidence to support the jury’s award of damages to

Catherine. Further, the award of $350,000.00 was actually below what Dr. Chiban

opined was warranted. Here, the jury heard conflicting evidence and expert opinion

and assessed the damages it awarded to Catherine. Accordingly, we find that a

reasonable basis exists in the record for the jury to award Catherine $350,000.00 in

damages for future medical expenses.

B. Ronnie Williams – Excessive Damages

Regarding the damages awarded to Ronnie, Travelers asserts that $60,000.00

for loss of consortium was excessive. According to Travelers, most of Ronnie’s

testimony pertained to how the accident impacted Catherine and not how it impacted

him.

Ronnie testified that he and Catherine were married in 2006. Ronnie further

testified that prior to the accident Catherine was “active” and “jolly” often going out

shopping with her daughter or sister. However, since the accident, despite Ronnie

being hesitant to testify negatively about Catherine, he described her as different

with a “bad attitude.”

Ronnie’s testimony confirmed that prior to the accident he and Catherine

travelled often by visiting their adult children who lived away, by going on leisure

trips to places like Albuquerque, New Mexico and Gatlinburg, Tennessee, or by

simply taking trips in their RV. Ronnie also stated that prior to the accident they

used to take trips for family Christmases where the entire family would travel to
11

Dallas or Baton Rouge. Ronnie also testified that prior to the accident the couple

did many activities together such as eating out at restaurants, bowling, or going to

movies. They also regularly attended church community gatherings, in addition to

normal weekend services. Since the accident, Ronnie stated that Catherine does

none of these things, and she just “stay[s] around the house mostly” because she can

no longer ride in a car for long distances. In summation, Ronnie testified that “we

mostly did a lot of things together that, you know, that we don’t do too much

anymore, you know.”

Ronnie described Catherine as a “good homemaker” prior to the accident

wherein she did all the cleaning, cooking, and washing of clothes. He stated that

prior to the accident he would offer to help her, but she would not allow it because

he “can’t get out of the way.” Since the accident, he now has to help her because

“she ain’t got no other choice.” Finally, Ronnie testified that he and Catherine no

longer have a “normal sexual life anymore because of her pain.”

While the above testimony does focus mostly on how Catherine had changed

since the accident, a reasonable trier of fact can conclude that the negative impact

on Catherine also negatively impacted Ronnie, thus resulting in damage to Ronnie.

We find a man whose spouse changed from being a “jolly” and “active” companion

on many couple endeavors to being a person in pain with a “bad attitude” and who

“stays around the house mostly” can reasonably be found to have proven entitlement

to loss of consortium damages. Further, Ronnie testified that his life has changed

by an increase in performing homemaker tasks and in a loss of a “normal sexual

life.”

Moreover, the facts of this case, as found by the jury, are not such that Ronnie

had to deal with Catherine’s changes for a limited amount of time prior to her

recovering from her injuries. Rather, the jury awarded Catherine future medical
12

expenses related to Dr. Chiban’s testimony that Catherine would undergo

interventional pain management for the rest of her life. This results in the reasonable

conclusion that Catherine’s changes since the accident would continue to also impact

Ronnie for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, we find that a reasonable basis exists

in the record for the jury to award Ronnie $60,000.00 in loss of consortium damages.

III. Williamses’ Assignment of Error – Award for Future Medical Expenses

In their sole assignment of error, the Williamses argue that the jury failed to

award the full amount of Catherine’s future medical expenses as proven at trial. The

Williamses point out that Dr. Chiban’s estimated cost for Catherine to undergo

interventional pain management for the rest of her life to be between $457,283.00

and $812,183.00, and they argue this testimony was uncontroverted. The jury

awarded Catherine Williams $350,000.00 for future medical expenses; accordingly,

this was a manifest error.

However, and as Travelers points out in brief, Catherine had similar

complaints of pain prior to the accident in a multitude of respects. Thus, the jury

was aware of the medical records from before the accident and could reasonably

conclude that some, but not all, of Dr. Chiban’s estimated costs for future medical

expenses were related to the accident based on those medical records. Moreover,

Dr. Chiban did acknowledge that Catherine suffered from other back conditions that

could produce back pain that were unrelated to the accident.

As such, after a thorough review of the record, we find a reasonable basis

exists for the jury to award less than the full future medical expenses suggested by

Dr. Chiban. Thus, this assignment of error lacks merit.

13

DECREE

Travelers raises six assignments of error regarding the allocation of fault and

damages awarded by the jury. We find no merit to any of the raised assignments.

Catherine and Ronnie Williams raise a single assignment of error that the

jury’s award to Catherine for future medical expenses was insufficient. This

assignment of error lacks merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the jury’s allocation of fault and damage awards in

this matter. Costs of these proceedings are assessed to Steven Smith, Acadian

Ambulance, and Travelers Indemnity Company CT.

AFFIRMED.

14