2020 Super Lawyers

A rear-end collision is a unique animal in the law. Plaintiff’s attorneys seek them out, and insurance companies fear them­­--sometimes for good reason. The "rear-end" accident is unique because proof of the mere fact that one vehicle strikes the rear of another creates a strong legal presumption of fault under La. R.S. 32:81. While this presumption is formidable, it may be overcome.

The rear-end presumption is premised upon the duty to not follow too closely and the law will assume that the following driver breached this duty when there is impact. However, the following driver can escape liability if he shows that his vehicle was under control, that he followed at a safe distance, and that the lead driver negligently created a hazard which could not have reasonably been avoided. For instance, if it is shown that the reckless or unpredictable driving of the lead motorist created a sudden emergency, the following driver will not be at fault. Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 35 So.3d 230 (La. 2010). Once established, the sudden emergency defense trumps the “rear-end presumption.”A "sudden emergency" is created when a driver is placed in a position of imminent peril that he or she did not create through their own conduct. Hickman v. Southern Pacific Transport Company, 262 So.2d 385 (La. 1972). When a driver can demonstrate the existence of a sudden emergency, they are not negligent for failing to do what a reasonable person might have done to avoid the accident had they been given enough time to assess and react to the situation.In Jewitt v. Alvarez, 179 So.3d 645 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/30/15), a following driver who rear-ended the vehicle of the lead driver was free from fault as a result of the sudden emergency defense where the facts revealed that the accident was solely caused by the slow speed of the lead driver (who almost came to a complete stop on the interstate) and the presence of surrounding traffic prevented the following vehicle from taking evasive action.In Carias v. Loren, 2015 WL 1019481 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/9/15), an eighteen-wheeler was traveling in the middle lane of the interstate when a "phantom driver" moved without warning from the left lane to the middle lane and slammed on its brakes in front of the eighteen-wheeler. In attempt to avoid the collision, the driver of the eighteen-wheeler swerved to his right and impacted a vehicle which then struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The driver of the eighteen-wheeler invoked the sudden emergency defense; the court agreed and found the defendant-driver free from fault.Rear-end collisions are hard to defend, but a defendant may want to gather a clear understanding of all of the facts before accepting liability. If these facts support the sudden emergency defense, the driver may "walk."

Legal malpractice claims in Louisiana are governed by a peremption period that cannot be interrupted or suspended. La. R.S. 9:5605(A) provides that a legal malpractice claim must be brought one year from the date of the alleged malpractice, or within one year from the date the alleged malpractice should have been discovered. However, even when a claim is filed within one year of discovery, it must be filed within three years of the date of the alleged malpractice. If a party fails to assert a legal malpractice claim before the peremption period expires, the right to bring the claim is lost.

The Louisiana Supreme Court holds that “peremption commences to run in a legal malpractice case when a claimant knew or should have known of the existence of facts that would have enabled him to state a cause of action for legal malpractice.” In Crosby v. Waits, Emmett, Popp & Teich, LLC, the court recently examined the types of circumstances that should inform a plaintiff that an act of alleged malpractice occurred, which would trigger the peremptive period in which the plaintiff’s claim must be filed.

The plaintiff in Crosby owned 75% of a company and was in the process of buying out the minority stakeholder. The company was involved in litigation at the time. Initially, the minority stakeholder maintained all of the recovery and risk related to the suit. In April 2016, an attorney advised the plaintiff to accept an offer to split the recovery and risk in the suit 50/50 as part of the sale. The plaintiff then accepted the 50/50 offer. The litigation concluded after the sale, in February 2018, and resulted in an adverse judgment for which the plaintiff was responsible pursuant to the 50/50 agreement.

The plaintiff filed suit on February 12, 2019, within one year of the verdict in the underlying litigation, and claimed that its attorney committed malpractice when he advised that plaintiff accept the offer to split the recovery and risk in the suit. Specifically, it was alleged the attorney failed to examine the nature of the litigation or discover that the seller’s employees were aware the suit bore serious risk. The plaintiff’s representative testified that he did not keep track of the litigation and therefore could not have known the attorney engaged in the alleged malpractice until the jury rendered its verdict in the underlying suit.

However, the minority stakeholder testified that he knew the 50/50 offer was a bad deal for the plaintiff. Another employee testified he thought the risk of loss in the underlying suit was apparent to everyone involved. The court agreed. Based upon the evidence presented, “it should have been obvious to all concerned that the 50/50 option was favorable” to the minority stakeholder, who was adverse to the plaintiff’s interest.

The court held that the plaintiff should have known its attorney may have committed an act of malpractice when he advised it to accept the 50/50 split before the underlying litigation concluded. Accordingly, suit was not filed within one year of when the plaintiff should have known the alleged act of malpractice occurred. The plaintiff’s claims that it lacked such knowledge could not stand up to conflicting evidence. Thus, the claim was peremepted, and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.

Case References:

Crosby v. Waits, Emmett, Popp & Teich, LLC, 2022-0395 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/21/22), 352 So. 3d 145.

Jenkins v. Starns, 2011-1170, p. 15 (La. 1/24/12), 85 So.3d 612, 621.

Although courts have described the outcome as “harsh,” a recent ruling shows that a judgment creditor can recover the full amount of an employee’s unpaid debt from an employer if that employer fails to comply with specific garnishment procedures.

A party that prevails in a lawsuit and is awarded damages is known as a judgment creditor. In order to collect on the judgment, Louisiana law allows a judgment creditor to garnish the wages of the judgment debtor, the party cast in judgment. Once a judgment against an employee is obtained, the judgement creditor may issue garnishment interrogatories to the employer requesting information related to the employee’s job, rate of compensation, manner of payment, and whether there are other judgments or garnishments affecting the employee’s compensation.

It is imperative that the employer file sworn answers to all garnishment interrogatories within 30 days from the date of service.^ Louisiana courts treat unsworn answers to interrogatories as a failure to answer,* and an employer’s failure to timely answer garnishment interrogatories can result in costly penalties. In fact, a Louisiana employer can be held liable for the full amount of the employee’s judgment if procedural requirements are not followed.

La. C.C.P. art. 2413(A) states that if the employer fails to answer the garnishment interrogatories within 30 days from the date of service, then the judgment creditor may proceed against the employer for the amount of the unpaid judgment, with interest and costs. La. C.C.P. art. 2413(B) provides that the employer must pay the entire amount of the judgment unless it proves the actual amount it owed to the employee at the trial on the contradictory motion. Regardless of the decision on the contradictory motion, La C.C.P. art. 2413(C) requires the employer to pay the costs and reasonable attorney’s fees of the judgment creditor.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently examined these procedures in Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams.^^ The judgment creditor in the Tower Credit case issued garnishment interrogatories to the judgment debtor’s employer. However, the employer failed to timely respond to garnishment interrogatories. When the judgment creditor filed a Motion for Judgment Pro Confesso against the employer to require it to appear and present evidence regarding the amount of wages it should have withheld after receiving the garnishment interrogatories, the employer failed to appear for the hearing.

Given the employer’s failure to timely respond to the interrogatories and its failure to appear for the hearing, the First Circuit found that the creditor was entitled to a judgment pro confesso against the employer for the entire amount of the employee’s debt. Citing the unique facts of the case, which included evidence that the judgment debtor/employee no longer worked for the employer cast in judgment, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently granted vacated part of the judgment pro confesso and remanded the matter for rehearing.**

However, this case shows that Louisiana courts will enforce La. C.C.P. art. 2413 and cast an employer in judgment for its employee’s debt, even though courts have described the statute’s penalties as “harsh.” Tower Credit shows that employers should respond to garnishment interrogatories within the timeframe provided by law. In the event the deadline is passed, La. C.C.P. art. 2413(B) requires the employer to appear for the judgment pro confesso hearing if it intends to argue it should not be indebted for the judgment. Failure to do both could result in the employer being held liable for the full amount of its employee’s unpaid debt.

References:

^ See La. C.C.P. art. 2412(D).

*See All Star Floor Covering, Inc. v. Stitt, 804 So. 2d 705 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001).

^^Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams, 2022-0106 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/16/22), 352 So. 3d 1029, writ granted, judgment vacated in part, 2022-01556 (La. 2/7/23), 354 So. 3d 659.

**Tower Credit, Inc. v. Williams, 2022-01556 (La. 2/7/23), 354 So. 3d 659.