Thursday, January 31, 2013

Cay v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development case brief

Cay v. State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development case summary
613 So. 2d 393 (La. 1994)
Tort Law

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Defendant department of transportation sought certiorari review of a judgment from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Catahoula, which affirmed a trial court judgment in favor of plaintiff parents in the parents' wrongful death action against the department arising from their son's death in a fall from a bridge constructed and maintained by the department.

FACTS:
-A man fell off a bridge that was built and maintained by the Department of Transportation.
-He left the bar before crossing the bridge, on foot, carrying an open beer with him.  He refused a ride that he was offered. 
-The trial concluded that the decedent accidentally fell and apportioned fault 60 percent to the department and 40 percent to the decedent.

HOLDING:
-The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the department built the bridge with the knowledge that pedestrians were going to use the bridge and with the knowledge that standards required a minimum height for railings on bridges used by pedestrians.

ANALYSIS:
-Further, the court found that the department failed to build the bridge in accordance with standards and that the failure was a cause-in-fact of the accidental fall.
-Accordingly, the court held that concurrent fault in causing the accident rendered the department liable for damages, subject to a reduction for contributory negligence.
-The court held that the trial court manifestly erred in allocating 60 percent of the fault to the department.
-The court amended to quantify the decedent as 90 percent at fault and the department as 10 percent at fault.
-The court also determined that the decedent's intoxication and his negligence in failing to follow rules for pedestrian travel at night were significant factors in his fall.

RULES:
Cause-in-fact is the initial inquiry in a duty-risk analysis. Cause-in-fact is usually a "but for" inquiry which tests whether the injury would not have occurred but for a defendant's substandard conduct. The cause-in-fact issue is usually a jury question unless reasonable minds could not differ.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed, as amended, the judgment in favor of the parents in their suit against the department. The court amended the judgment to quantify the decedent as 90 percent at fault and the department as 10 percent at fault.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...