Opinion
NO. 2018 CA 1374
04-17-2019
ALEX BRANT AND MAYOLA BRANT v. SALVADOR ELIZALDE AND CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM (CATS)
Douglas M. Chapoton Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Alex Brant and Mayola Brant Creighton B. Abadie Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Capital Area Transit System
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
Case No. C650562 The Honorable William A. Morvant, Judge Presiding Douglas M. Chapoton
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants
Alex Brant and Mayola Brant Creighton B. Abadie
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Capital Area Transit System BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ. THERIOT, J.
Alex Brant and Mayola Brant appeal the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court dismissing their claims against Capital Area Transit System and Salvador Elizalde, with prejudice and at their cost. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 3, 2015, Alex Brant and his wife, Mayola Brant, were involved in an automobile accident with a Capital Area Transit System ("CATS") bus driven by Salvador Elizalde. Mrs. Brant was driving her son's 2009 BMW when the accident occurred.
On August 8, 2016, Mr. and Mrs. Brant (collectively "plaintiffs") filed a petition for damages against Mr. Elizalde and CATS (collectively "defendants"), alleging that the accident was caused solely by the fault and negligence of Mr. Elizalde and that CATS is vicariously liable for Mr. Elizalde's actions. Mr. Brant alleged that he had suffered injuries to his neck, back, and vertebra; bruising to his torso; stress and mental anguish; injuries to his lower torso; and other injuries to be shown at trial. Mrs. Brant alleged that she had suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck and back; injuries to her vertebra and disks in her cervical and lumbar spines; injuries to her shoulders and back; mental anguish and distress; and other injuries to be shown at trial.
On September 19, 2016, CATS answered the plaintiffs' petition, admitting that Mr. Elizalde was in the course and scope of his employment with CATS when the accident occurred, but denying liability. CATS also alleged that if the plaintiffs were injured, which CATS specifically denied, the plaintiffs had exaggerated their injuries and failed to mitigate their damages.
The record does not reflect that Mr. Elizalde was served with or answered the petition. --------
A one-day bench trial was held on May 17, 2018. Following trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, with prejudice, at plaintiffs' cost. In oral reasons, the trial court referenced a video of the accident and stated that the plaintiffs' version of events was contradicted by the video evidence. Accordingly, the trial court held that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of proof as to the issue of liability, thus alleviating the necessity for the trial court to consider the question of causation and damages.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Plaintiffs assign the following as error:
(1) The trial court was manifestly erroneous and clearly wrong in finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on liability.
(2) The trial court was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in its interpretation of the video evidence of the accident.
(3) The trial court was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in not considering all evidence submitted which clearly provides by a preponderance of the evidence that Elizalde breached his standard of care and that it was a cause of the accident in the case sub judice.
(4) Even if the trial court's interpretation of the video is correct, which is denied, the trial court was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in finding that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on liability.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
It is well settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's or a jury's finding of fact in the absence of "manifest error" or unless it is "clearly wrong." Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844.
Under the manifest error-clearly wrong standard, this court employs a two-part test for the reversal of a factfinder's determinations. Bova v. Butler, 2014- 0765 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/14); 168 So.3d 551, 554, writ denied, 2015-0172 (La. 4/17/15); 168 So.3d 398 (citing Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. And Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993)). First, this court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the findings of the trial court. Bova, 168 So.3d at 554. Second, this court must determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). Id. This test requires this court to review the record in its entirety to determine manifest error. Id. This court's determination is not whether the factfinder was correct, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was reasonable. Id. 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. Id. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder's choice cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Rabalais v. Nash, 2006-0999 (La. 3/9/07); 952 So.2d 653, 657 (citing Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883).
DISCUSSION
Assignments of Error #1 and #2
In their first assignment of error, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on liability. In their second assignment of error, the plaintiffs assert that the trial court's interpretation of the video evidence in this case was clearly wrong. Because the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on liability was based on the trial court's interpretation of the video evidence, we address these assignments of error concurrently.
Under Louisiana Civ. Code art. 2315, an individual is entitled to recover the damages he sustains as a result of another's fault. Mitchell v. Aaron's Rentals, 2016-0619 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/12/17); 218 So.3d 167, 175. In an action to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by another's negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. Mitchell, 218 So.3d at 174. Proof is sufficient to constitute a preponderance when the entirety of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, shows that the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not. Id.
Most negligence cases are resolved by employing the duty-risk analysis, which entails five separate elements: (1) whether the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard (the duty element); (2) whether the defendant's conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard (the breach element); (3) whether the defendant's substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries (the cause-in-fact element); (4) whether the defendant's substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries (the scope of liability or scope of protection element); and (5) whether the plaintiff was damaged (the damages element). Mitchell, 218 So.3d at 175-76. In the present case, the trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof as to the issue of liability, and thus never reached the question of causation or damages. This was based on the trial court's finding that Mrs. Brant's vehicle had not stopped alongside the bus, but instead had continued to move and made a right turn into the bus. Because the trial court's ruling was based on a finding of fact, we must determine whether the trial court's findings were manifestly erroneous. See Rosell, 549 So.2d at 844.
Mrs. Brant testified that, on the day of the accident, she and Mr. Brant were driving on Airline Highway near McClelland Drive in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Mrs. Brant was driving her son's 2009 BMW and her husband was the passenger, and they were driving to Money Mart on Airline Highway. She testified that she was driving in the right lane when she saw the CATS bus parked on the shoulder of the highway between two driveways that were near the bus stop, but it was not parked at the bus stop itself. She alleged that, when she saw the bus begin to move, she stopped her vehicle because she intended to make a right turn. She further alleged that while she was stopped completely alongside the CATS bus, the CATS bus entered the travel lane and hit her vehicle. She testified that after the collision, the CATS bus went back to the shoulder of the road.
Mr. Brant, the passenger of the BMW, also testified at trial. He testified that he and his wife were traveling in the far right lane of Airline Highway when he saw the CATS bus stopped on the shoulder of the highway a little ways in front of the bus stop. Mr. Brant alleged that his wife stopped alongside the bus but did not attempt to turn into Money Mart. While the BMW was stopped in the right lane, the bus allegedly left the shoulder of the road, entered their lane of travel, and struck the BMW on the front right side of the vehicle. Mr. Brant testified that the bus then returned to the shoulder of the road and parked.
The accident itself was caught on video from various angles due to cameras installed on the CATS bus. In one angle, a camera at or near the front of the bus filmed the road directly in front of the bus. In a second angle, a camera at or near the front of the bus filmed the inside of the bus and showed some of the activity outside of the windows on the left side of the bus. In the third angle, a camera above the bus driver pointed towards the bus's door and filmed the area immediately outside of the bus's entrance. In the fourth angle, a camera above the bus's door, which was pointed towards the driver, captured footage of the driver himself and approximately the front half of the bus, including the windows on the left side of the front half of the bus.
The video footage depicts the following immediately prior to and after the accident: (1) the bus is traveling in the right lane of the highway; (2) the bus moves onto the shoulder of the road and approaches a driveway where two people - including one in a wheelchair - are waiting; (3) the bus stops next to the people standing in the driveway and the bus driver asks them whether they were waiting for his particular bus; (4) the people in the driveway indicate that they were not waiting for this bus; (5) as the bus driver and the people in the driveway are speaking, a white vehicle (the BMW driven by Mrs. Brant) is seen driving in the right travel lane immediately next to the bus; (6) the bus driver, still looking to his right, begins to drive forward and drifts slightly toward the right lane of Airline Highway, but does not appear to enter the right lane; (7) as the bus is moving forward, the white vehicle, still driving forward, turns right and collides with the bus; (8) the bus stops for a few seconds and then drives forward a little ways before stopping the vehicle.
The trial court emphasized the video evidence and found that the video footage contradicts the plaintiffs' version of the event. Specifically, the trial court stated:
I see the bus moving forward on the shoulder. And I don't see this leftward movement that you're referring to. And again, I've looked at it time and time again. I see Mrs. Brant's vehicle continuing to move and making a right turn into the bus. The video completely belies [Plaintiffs'] contention as to how the accident happened. And based on the video, I cannot say that Plaintiffs have met their burden of proof as to the issue of liability that would even get me to causation and damages . . . I looked at where [the bus] was stopped, I looked at its movements and I looked at the movements of Mrs. Brant, and again, it's completely contradicted by the video testimony. So, I do not think Plaintiffs have met their burden of proof on the issue of liability which alleviates the necessity of the court even considering causation and damages if that first element has not been met. So, I'm going to find that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof, render judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing Plaintiffs' case with prejudice at Plaintiffs' costs.
Considering the entire record, including the video evidence, we cannot say that the trial court's findings were manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. The video shows that the bus began drifting left towards the right lane of traffic, but the bus did not appear to cross the white line dividing the right lane and the shoulder. Although Mr. Elizalde was looking to his right, outside of the bus's door, when he should have been looking to his left to see whether any vehicles were in the right lane, he did not collide with the plaintiffs. Additionally, while the plaintiffs both testified that the BMW was at a complete stop when the accident occurred, the video clearly contradicts that testimony. As such, the trial court's finding that Mrs. Brant made a right turn into the bus is not manifestly erroneous.
In so finding, the trial court found that it could not reach the question of causation or damages. We find that the video evidence shows the trial court was not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in finding that Mrs. Brant, not Mr. Elizalde, caused the accident.
These assignments of error lack merit.
Assignments of Error #3 and #4
In their third assignment of error, the plaintiffs assert that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in not considering all evidence submitted, which clearly proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Elizalde breached his standard of care and that it was a cause of the accident. In their fourth assignment of error, the plaintiffs argue that even if the trial court's interpretation of the video is correct, the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on liability. In other words, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court should have considered other evidence aside from the video footage, including Mr. Elizalde's written statement in his CATS Supervisor's Incident Report and Mr. and Mrs. Brant's written statements in the accident report. Because both of these assignments of error posit that the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence aside from the video, we address these assignments of error together.
The plaintiffs assert that there is no evidence to contradict the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Brant, nor is there any evidence to contradict the plaintiffs' assertions that Mr. Elizalde breached his standard of care as provided in Plaintiffs' Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5. We disagree. The video evidence contradicts the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Brant, who both testified that their vehicle was at a complete stop when the bus collided into them.
As to the exhibits, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2 contains several photographs, including photographs of the CATS bus, the plaintiffs' vehicle, and the scene of the accident. The photographs show damage to the left side of the bus, as well as damage to the front right side of the plaintiffs' vehicle. Nothing in these photographs supports or disproves the plaintiffs' version of the accident.
Exhibit 3 is the accident report. The officer's narrative portion of the accident report states:
Driver one, Salvador Elizalde stated that he was entering the roadway from the shoulder when he collided into vehicle two.
Driver two, Mayola Brant stated that she was in the process of making a right turn from the right lane when vehicle one entered the roadway from the shoulder and collided into her vehicle.
See attached written statements.
The written statement referred to in the crash report is Plaintiff's Exhibit 11. In this written statement, which was signed by both plaintiffs, Mrs. Brant wrote that she was going to make a right turn off of Airline Highway, but was waiting on the CATS bus. She further wrote that the driver of the CATS bus was not looking out for other vehicles and pulled into the highway and hit her vehicle.
Exhibit 4 is the CATS Operator Handbook, which provides the rules that govern CATS bus drivers. Exhibit 5 is a CATS Supervisor's Incident Report, which was made on the same day as the accident. In this report, Mr. Elizalde wrote a description of the accident in which he stated that he was pulled over in the "service lane" on Airline Highway just past McClelland Lane to pick up a man in a wheelchair. Mr. Elizalde wrote that, when he realized that the man in the wheelchair was not waiting for his particular bus, he began moving forward and began to change lanes. As he was doing so, his bus made contact with a white BMW on the bus's front driver's side. He also wrote that "the BMW tried to pass [the] bus to make a right turn."
The non-video evidence submitted by the plaintiffs does not negate or diminish the video evidence. Regardless of what rules Mr. Elizalde may or may not have violated, the video supports that the trial court was not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in finding that Mrs. Brant caused the accident at issue by making a right turn into the CATS bus.
Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder's choice cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Rabalais, 952 So.2d at 657 (citing Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883). We do not find that the trial court's interpretation of the video evidence and the weight of credibility (or lack thereof) the trial court placed on the fact-witnesses was manifestly erroneous. See Myles v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of Tangipahoa Parish, 2017-1014 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/6/18); 248 So.3d 545, 550; see also Adams v. Rhodia, Inc., 2007-2110 (La. 5/21/08); 983 So.2d 798, 806-07. The non-video evidence submitted by the plaintiffs does not negate or diminish the video evidence. The video evidence depicts Mrs. Brant making a right turn into the CATS bus. We find the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claim was reasonable and not manifestly erroneous. Therefore, these assignments of error lack merit.
DECREE
For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court dismissing the claims of Alex Brant and Mayola Brant, and finding in favor of Capital Area Transit System and Salvador Elizalde is affirmed. Costs are assessed to the plaintiffs, Alex Brant and Mayola Brant.
AFFIRMED.