Estes v. USA Truck Inc ( 2004 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30569
STEPHEN RAY ESTES,
individually and as the natural parent
and tutor, on behalf of JOLIE ESTES,
on behalf of STEPHEN JAMES ESTES,
on behalf of JONATHAN ESTES,
on behalf of JUSTIN ESTES,
on behalf of MIRIAM ESTES;
LANELL ESTES
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
USA TRUCK INCORPORATED;
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(96-CV-1807)
October 29, 1998
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:*
Appellant Stephen Ray Estes, his wife Lanell Estes, and their minor children (collectively “the
Esteses”) seek monetary damages from appellees USA Truck, Inc. and its insurer St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Co. (“USA Truck”) for personal injuries suffered by Stephen Ray Estes (“Estes”).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not
precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR R. 47.5.4.
Appellees pled comparative fault as an affirmative defense to the Estes’ claims of negligence. Trial
was held limited to the issues of liability and apportionment of fault. At the close of appellants’ case
in chief, appellees moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to F.R.C.P. 50. The district court
granted appellees’ motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Estes was struck by an automobile driven by Marjorie Trant2 while lending assistance to Willie
Henry (“Henry”), the operator of an 18-wheel truck owned by USA Truck. The accident occurred
on February 5, 1996 at approximately 11:00 p.m. Henry was attempting to deliver goods to Estes
and was having trouble negotiating a left turn from the street on which Henry was traveling onto
Estes’s street. While Estes helped guide the truck onto his street, Trant struck Estes while he was
standing in the southbound lane; the truck was then wholly in the northbound lane. Trant’s lane of
travel, the southbound lane, was completely unimpeded by the truck at the time of the accident.
The parties stipulate that Trant saw the truck and, before coming completely upon it, realized
that it was stopped in the northbound lane. At trial, Trant testified that she was approximately one-
half mile up the road heading south when she first saw the truck, and she could tell at that point that
it was stopped. Trant also testified that she was a “pretty good distance” from the truck when she
first began applying her brakes. The parties also stipulate that, at all relevant times, Henry had his
headlights and hazard flashers on; however, Henry failed to place any reflective triangles or flares in
the roadway to indicate that the truck was temporarily stopped.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
We review the grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo, applying the same legal standard
that applies to the district court. See Omnitech Int’l Inc. v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316, 1322-23 (5th
2
Trant is not a party to this litigation, although the jury was allowed to assign a percentage of fault
to her.
2
Cir. 1994). Judgment as a matter of law is warranted after a party has been fully heard by the jury
on a given issue, and “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have
found for the party with respect to that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). On review, the record is to be
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 253-55 (1986); Foreman v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 117 F.3d 800, 804 (5th Cir.
1997); Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc). The propriety of a
district court’s granting of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, however, “should not be decided
by which side has the better of the case, nor should [it] be granted only when there is a complete
absence of probative facts to support a jury verdict. There must be a conflict in substantial evidence
to create a jury question.” Boeing, 411 F.2d at 374-75.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
A. Negligence Per Se
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“the Safety Regulations”), 49 C.F.R. § 350
et seq., provide the following:
Whenever a co mmercial motor vehicle is stopped upon the traveled portion of a
highway or the shoulder of a highway for any cause other than necessary traffic stops,
the driver of the stopped commercial motor vehicle shall immediately activate the
vehicular hazard warning signal flashers and continue the flashing until the driver
places . . . warning devices . . . . The flashing signals shall be used during the time the
warning devices are picked up for storage before movement of the commercial motor
vehicle. The flashing lights may be used at other times while a commercial motor
vehicle is stopped in addition to, but not in lieu of, the warning devices . . . .
49 C.F.R. § 392.22(a) (1998) (emphasis added). The Safety Regulations further mandate that
commercial vehicles must carry three (3) bidirectional emergency reflective triangles, six (6) fuses,
or three (3) liquid-burning flares. See id. §§ 393.95(f)(2)(I) and (ii). They also describe the specific
placement of the warning devices. See id. § 392.22(b).
The Esteses argue that the district court erred in finding that there was not sufficient evidence
for a reasonable jury to find that the negligence, if any, of the appellees was a cause in fact and a legal
cause of Estes’s injuries. The Esteses assert that appellees were per se negligent because Henry failed
3
to place warning devices in the roadway as mandated for commercial vehicles by the Safety
Regulations. The Louisiana Supreme Court has, however, rejected the term “negligence per se.” See
Faucheaux v. Terrebonne Consolidated Government, 615 So. 2d 289, 292 (La. 1993); Weber v.
Phoenix Assurance Co. of New York, 273 So. 2d 30, 33 (La. 1963). Thus, under Louisiana law,
“[t]he violation of a statute or regulation does not automatically, in and of itself, impose civil
liability.” Fancheaux, 615 So. 2d at 292. Consequently, a party will not be held to have been
negligent merely because of a finding of a cause in fact and/or a statutory or regulatory violation
without an additional finding that the party’s actions were a legal cause of the injuries inflicted. See
id. at 292-93; Weber, 273 So. 2d at 33.
Despite the fact that Henry’s violation of the safety regulations did not constitute negligence
per se, the Esteses are nonetheless not foreclosed from showing that his inaction amounted to
ordinary negligence.
B. Ordinary Negligence
In Louisiana, a plaintiff est ablishes a prima facie case of negligence by demonstrating the
existence of the following element s: duty, breach, cause in fact, legal cause, and damages. See
Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1,4 (La. 1990); see also Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So. 2d 1032, 1041 (La.
1992); David W. Robertson,3 The Vocabulary of Negligence: Continuing Causation Confusion 58
LA. L. REV. 1, 4, n. 12 (1997). There is no dispute between the parties as to whether Henry, the
driver of the truck, breached his duty under the Safety Regulations. The dispute here concerns
whether that breach was a cause in fact and a legal cause of Estes’ injuries.
1. Factual Causation
In determining whether the breach of duty committed by the defendant is the cause in fact of
the plaintiff’s injuries, one asks the classic “but-for” question: “Would the plaintiff’s injuries have been
avoided but for the action or inaction of the defendant?” In the instant case, the question is
3
W. Page Keeton Chair in Tort Law, University of Texas at Austin. This article is a revision of
a paper delivered to the Summer School for Judges conducted by the Louisiana Judicial College in
June 1997.
4
formulated thusly: would Estes have been struck (or at least would he have been struck with less
force) had Henry placed the requisite warning signals in the roadway?
Trant, the driver of the vehicle that struck Estes, testified that, although she was able to see
the flashing hazard lights of the truck from some distance—and notwithstanding the fact that the
truck’s headlights were blinding her—she only slightly reduced the speed of her car (from 45 miles
per hour to 40). Appellees contend that this fact proves that, had there been more extensive warning
apparatuses in the road, Trant would not have slowed down any further. Despite, appellees’
assertion, it appears that one could reasonably conclude otherwise. For instance, one could conclude
that additional warning apparatuses would have given Trant reason to reduce her speed even more,
as she had already testified that she was inclined to reduce her speed when some warning was
provided. Thus, it appears that a reasonable jury could have found that Henry’s inaction was a cause
in fact of Estes’ injuries.
2. Legal Causation
In determining whether Henry’s failure to comply with the safety regulations was a legal cause
of Estes’ injuries, one must perform a "scope of protection inquiry" which entails ascertaining the
following: “Was the rule of law violated by the defendant designed to protect the plaintiff’s general
class of persons against the harm the plaintiff suffered?” Robertson, supra, at 14; see also Mathieu
v. Imperial Toy Corp. 646 So. 2d 318, 322 (La. 1994).
The Esteses argue that Estes was among the class of persons that the Safety Regulations were
meant to protect. However, the administrative history of the Safety Regulations states that they were
put into place in order “to reduce deaths due to rear end collisions between oncoming traffic and
disabled vehicles.” 37 Fed.Reg.5038 (March 9, 1972) (emphasis added). This information suggests
that Henry’s failure to comply with the safety regulations, though a breach of duty, and possibly a
cause in fact of Estes’ injuries, could not have reasonably been found to be a legal cause of the
injuries because the regulations were put in place solely to protect those driving in the same lane of
traffic as the disabled commercial vehicle. If we accept this reasoning, neither Trant nor Estes was
5
among the class of persons that the Safety Regulations were meant to protect, and no reasonable jury
could find that the appellees’ inaction was a legal cause of Estes’s injuries. Thus, the Estes’ claim
for damages would fail as a matter of law.
We have trouble accepting the proposition that the regulations were put in place solely to
protect those driving in the same lane of traffic as the disabled commercial vehicle. If the regulations
were intended only to guard against rear end collisions, why do they require drivers o f disabled
vehicles to place one triangle in front of the vehicle? We cannot ascribe surplusage to statutes or
regulations, yet the forward triangle would be just that if the sole purpose of the Safety Regulations
were to keep same-lane traffic from rear-ending a stopped truck. Clearly, a motorist approaching
from the rear would not be able to see such a warning.
Furthermore, in interpreting a Louisiana regulation almost identical to the federal one at issue
in this case, Louisiana courts have fashioned a much broader purpose for the requirement of warning
triangles, flares, and torches: “The statute is a safety measure designed to protect life and property
on the highways by providing some type of warning signals to motorists approaching disabled
vehicles.” Nelson v. Powers, 402 So. 2d 129, 134 (La. Ct. App. 1981). Finally the Supreme Court
has warned against relying too heavily on legislative or administrative history when statutory language
is clear. See, e.g., Salinas v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 469, 474 (1997); Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S.
129, 135-36 (1991).
Whereas a reasonable construction of the regulation might be that it was intended to protect
only against rear-end collisions, it seems at least equally, if not more, plausible that—as the Esteses
urge—the requirement of warning triangles was designed to protect the disabled vehicle, other
vehicles, and any person, including the driver, who might be attending to a problem with the disabled
vehicle, regardless of the direction from which the “warnee” might be approaching. As the Esteses
insist, “[f]or the regulation to be meaningful at all it has to encompass not only the stopped truck and
the approaching motorists but persons who might reasonably be expected to be in the vicinity.”
6
Louisiana law establishes a rebuttable presumption that the causation issue will go to the jury
“unless reasonable minds could not differ.” Williams v. State of Louisiana, 576 So. 2d 490, 493 (La.
1991). As we have demonstrated above, the Estes submitted sufficient evidence of causation to be
entitled to have their claim decided by the jury.
III. Comparative Fault
The Esteses argue that the district court committed reversible error when it granted appellees’
motion for judgment as a matter of law because there existed well-pled issues of comparative fault
under La.C.C.Art. 2323. It is unnecessary for us to determine the percentage of fault absent an actual
finding of negligence. We have merely found that Estes submitted sufficient evidence of causation
to go to the jury. If the jury finds that the defendants were negligent, it will then be proper for them
to consider the issue of comparative fault. See Murray v. Ramada Inns, Inc., 521 So. 2d 1123, 1136
(La. 1991).
CONCLUSION
There exists legally sufficient evidentiary bases for the jury to have found for Estes with
respect to the issue of negligence on the part of the appellees. Therefore, the district court’s
granting of judgment as a matter of law in favor of appellees is REVERSED and the case is
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
7