Opinion
No. 2021-C-00656
10-05-2021
Latoya FONTENOT v. UV INSURANCE RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC., et al. Michael Robertson v. UV Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc., et al.
Writ application denied.
Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., would grant.
McCallum, J., would grant.
CRICHTON, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons:
I would grant and docket this matter to examine the correctness of the trial court's ruling granting a directed verdict. "A directed verdict should only be granted when the facts and inferences point so strongly in favor of one party that the court believes reasonable people could not reach a contrary verdict. It is appropriate, not when there is a preponderance of evidence, but only when the evidence overwhelmingly points to one conclusion." Hastings v. Baton Rouge General Hosp ., 498 So.2d 713, 718 (La. 1986), citing Scott, et al. v. Hospital Service District No. 1 of the Parish of St. Charles, et al. , 496 So.2d 270 (La. 1986) ; Breithaupt v. Sellers , 390 So.2d 870 (La. 1980). This Court has also held that "questions of credibility should not be resolved by a directed verdict." Reilly v. Dynamic Exploration, Inc., 571 So.2d 140, 144 (La. 1990), citing Henson v. Falls , 912 F.2d 977 (8th Cir. 1990) and Dalton v. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., 703 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1983). The jury, as factfinder, is responsible for weighing the respective credibility of the witnesses. See State v. Stockstill , 19-1235, p. 6 (La. 10/1/20), ––– So.3d ––––, ––––.
In my view, this case presents significant credibility issues directly related to causation and, therefore, inappropriate for a directed verdict. The defendants timely asserted their right to a jury, and it was within the purview of the jury to determine all issues related to credibility and causation. The trial court, in granting the directed verdict with a jury awarding almost $1.5 million dollars in damages, set a dangerous precedent of intervening and stripping away one of the jury's primary duties, thereby depriving the defendants the right to have a jury decide those issues.
It is well-settled that an appellate court 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). See also , Hayes Fund v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, et al. , 14-2592 (La. 12/8/15), 193 So.3d 1110 (finding the appellate court incorrectly analyzed the manifest error standard, there was no clear error by the trial court's choice of defendants’ experts as more credible than plaintiffs’ expert because a reviewing court only has the "cold record" for its consideration while the trier of fact has the "warm blood" of the litigants before it, citing Menard v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 09-1869, pp. 21-22 (La. 3/16/10), 31 So.3d 996, 1011 ). However, where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable, and the record is otherwise complete, an appellate court should make its own independent de novo review of the record. Evans v. Lungrin , 97-0541, p. 6-7 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731, 735, citing Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. , 94-1252 (La. 2/20/95), 650 So.2d 742, 747, rev'd in part, on other grounds , 96-3028 (La. 7/1/97), 696 So.2d 569, reh'g denied , 96-3028 (La. 9/19/97), 698 So.2d 1388. Moreover, a legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial. Lasha v. Olin Corp. , 625 So.2d 1002, 1006 (La. 1993). Such legal errors are prejudicial when they materially affect the outcome and deprive a party of substantial rights. See Lasha , 625 So.2d at 1006. Again, the trial court's grant of a directed verdict in this case substantially deprived the defendants of their right to have the jury determine important credibility issues directly related to causation, thus warranting a grant and docket and with either a de novo review by this Court or remand for a new trial. See Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 03-1734, p. 10 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 90, 99 ("We acknowledge, however, the well-established principle of Louisiana law that legal sufficiency of the evidence challenges, such as those presented by motions for summary judgment, motions for directed verdict, and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, are subject to the de novo standard of review that is used for all legal issues."). See also Maturin v. Bayou Teche Water Works, Inc ., 2020-257 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/16/20), 310 So. 3d 627, 640, writ denied, 2021-00068 (La. 3/2/21), 311 So. 3d 1061 (the court remanding after reversing a motion for directed verdict due to an incomplete record).