Published by The Pellegrin Firm July 31, 2019

On May 8, 2019, the Louisiana Supreme Court in New Orleans upheld a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”) in the case of a motorcyclist suing the DOTD alleging an unreasonably dangerous intersection contributed to his injuries. The accident in question took place at the intersection of Ravensdale Drive and Old Mooringsport Road in Shreveport, Caddo Parish. Both the motorcycle driver and the driver of the car were heading southbound, and as the car pulled into the southbound lane with the intent to turn onto Ravensdale Drive, the motorcycle struck the passenger side door of the vehicle causing injury to the motorcyclist. The plaintiff filed suit against the DOTD, whom the plaintiff alleges failed to warn of a dangerous condition and failed to remedy the defective design of the intersection. The DOTD filed a motion for summary judgement which was granted.

The DOTD relied on the affidavit of a civil engineer who averred that at the time of accident, the DOTD did not have a record of any repairs, maintenance, or construction projects that were being performed at or near the intersection. There was also no record of any complaints within 180 days prior to the accident with respect to the intersection. The driver of the car admitted in her deposition testimony that she was at fault for the accident because she did not see the motorcyclist before making her turn, and she denied that the road itself prevented her from seeing the oncoming motorcycle. The motorcyclist in his own deposition also testified that there were no sight obstructions that would keep a driver from seeing approaching vehicles at or near the intersection. Another civil engineer also personally viewed and inspected the crash site and the surrounding areas on two separate occasions and stated that there were no roadway abnormalities or design deficiencies that would be considered in violation or inconsistent with any roadway design standards or guidelines at the time of original construction. There were also sufficient lines of sight and stopping distances available for both drivers along their travel routes to negotiate the intersection safely. He concluded the intersection as not unreasonably dangerous.

The plaintiffs on the other hand relied on the affidavit of a traffic operations engineer. He reviewed multiple pleadings, depositions, accident reports, excerpts from the American Association of State Highway Officials (“AASHO”) publications, and certain DOTD daily work reports. He found in a 1940 publication, with repeat affirmations in 1965, 1973, 1984, 1990, 2001, 2004, and 2011, that the AASHO opined that regardless of the type of intersection, for safety and economy, intersecting roads should meet at or nearly at right angles. Based on a 2012 aerial photo of the intersection, it was his opinion that the intersection created a “Y” with an acute angle of less than twenty degrees. Though he does not know when the road was constructed, he believes that there was still over fifty years of notice that the design is flawed and accident prone. He concluded the layout of the intersection to be a “contributing factor” to the crash.

The court found that the DOTD satisfied its initial burden of establishing a lack of factual support for essential elements of the plaintiff’s claim. The court found the plaintiff’s expert did not sufficiently rebut the defense experts. His opinion stated the roads “should” meet at or nearly a right angle, and he listed the intersection as a “contributing factor” to the crash, but he did not say it was the cause of the accident or unreasonably dangerous. The court found his affidavit devoid of any factual support for his conclusion.  

In a dissenting opinion, some justices on the court found problems with how the trial court came to its decision. On summary judgment, a court is not to weigh the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. Maggio v. Parker, 17-1112 (La. 6/27/18), 250 So. 3d 874, 878; Larson v. XYZ Ins. Co., 16-0745 (La. 5/3/17), 226 So. 3d 412, 416. Some justices believed the trial court weighed the credibility of the witnesses as opposed to leaving this to the factfinder. Thus, the dissenting judges believed the plaintiff would have enough sufficient evidence to defeat the DOTD’s motion for summary judgement.