Case: Fontenot v. Patterson Insurance (2009)
Facts: In March 2001 Randy Fontenot and Germaine Brooks were involved in a fatal car crash. Mr. Fontenot was driving a police cruiser when he and Mr. Brooks collided into one another in an intersection. During the crash, Charlotte Phillips, Mr. Brook’s passenger was ejected and was pronounced dead. Two lawsuits were then filed, one whereas Mr. Fontenot filed suit for damages against Mr. Brooks and his insurance company, and another filed by Mr. Brooks seeking personal injury and wrongful death damages against Mr. Fontenot and LCG. During court the two cases were consolidated the court found responsibility as 90% to Mr. Brooks; 10% liability to Mr. Fontenot; and 0% liability to the DOTD. Appeals were…show more content… Holding: Yes, the court found that the jury “were not manifestly erroneous” in determining the liability of the incident.
Reasoning:
(Rule) In determining liability the court looks to La. R.S. 32:58, which states “Any person operating a motor vehicle on the public roads of this state shall drive in a careful and prudent manner, so as not to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. Failure to drive in such a manner shall constitute careless operation.” The court also draws upon La. R.S. 32:234, which states “Whenever an illuminated flashing red or yellow signal is used in a traffic sign or signal, it shall require obedience by vehicular traffic”.
(1) FLASHING RED (STOP SIGNAL)--When a red lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, drivers of vehicles shall stop before entering the nearest cross-walk at an intersection or at a limit line when marked, or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign.
(2) FLASHING YELLOW OR AMBER (CAUTION SIGNAL)--When a yellow lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, drivers of vehicles may proceed through or past such signal only with
