A Decade Old Article Finds New Life: Televised Testimony

A conviction for DWI brings the consequences you might expect, such as the loss of driving privileges, expensive attorneys’ fees, and public embarrassment. However, there is one additional, less-obvious consequence of which many are unaware; Louisiana provides immunity from claims brought by a drunk driver who was at least 25% at fault in the accident which caused his injuries, no matter how severe the injuries.

Generally stated, if you are driving drunk and are in an accident that is mostly someone else’s fault, you will not be able to recover for the injuries you sustain. Similarly, if your fault injures a drunk driver, the statute may shield you from liability. The “drunk driving” immunity is found in La. R.S. 9:2798.4. The statute provides immunity against the claims of a driver with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher.

The immunity may even apply to defendants who were not directly involved in the accident. In Stewart v. Daiquiri Affair, Inc., 20 So.3d 1041 (La. App. 1^st Cir. 2009), writ denied, 19 So.3d 477 (La. 2009), the immunity was found to apply to claims brought by an 18-year-old employee who consumed alcohol on the premises and was subsequently injured in a motor vehicle accident. Rejecting the argument that immunity should not apply when the employer arguably contributed to the under-age plaintiff’s consumption of alcohol, the appellate court in Stewart concluded that the statute’s language required immunity because the employee was more than 25% at fault and her blood alcohol content was over the legal limit.

Because the “drunk driving” immunity statute is supported by the legislature’s strong and long-standing interest in protecting citizens against drunk driving, it has been upheld and applied in many instances. Although you should not need another reason to not drive drunk, you now have one.

Earlier this year, Apple was sued in the California class action of Ceja v. Apple, BC #647057, Superior Ct. of California, County of Los Angeles. In the Ceja suit, it was alleged that Apple is liable for automobile-related injuries and death. The “theory of recovery” against Apple is fairly straight-forward: 1) since 2008, Apple has possessed the “lock-out” ability to prevent texting while driving; and, 2) it is liable because it failed to do so. Whether or not the plaintiffs prevail against Apple, the national trend is toward stricter anti-texting laws and harsher consequences for those who text and drive. While this post does not intend to suppose a moral equivalence between drunk driving and driving while texting, the building momentum against texting while driving is reminiscent of the development of the anti-drunk driving laws and message.

It was not until 1938 when 0.15 became the first commonly-used blood alcohol level for intoxication (nearly two times today’s legal limit). Today, driving with a .08 will land you in a Louisiana jail. Many states such as Louisiana have enacted punitive damage statutes that allow for substantial money awards against drunk drivers. For instance, under Civil Code Article 2315.4, punitive damages (a.k.a. “exemplary” damages) are available against any driver whose intoxication causes injury. The message has been heard: drunk driving is illegal and may costs you your freedom, your money, or both.

The prohibitions against texting while driving (and even the broader category of “distracted driving”) are expanding. The State of Washington was the first state to ban texting while driving in 2007. Almost every state has since followed suit. Attitudes are also changing, perhaps in response to public service announcements and targeted media campaigns.

While once legal here, Louisiana, at least on paper, now completely bans texting while driving under La. R.S. 32:300.5. This law was later expanded to prohibit driving while accessing, reading, or posting to a “social networking site.” Last year, related fines and penalties were increased.

The practice of texting while driving has been said to involve three forms of distraction:

1. Manual distraction- taking your hands away from the wheel;

2. Visual distraction- diverting your eyes away from the road;

3. Cognitive distraction- taking your attention away from safely driving.

In the last few years, at least two drivers (one in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania) have been sued under allegations that they are liable for injury because they sent texts to persons they knew or should have known were driving. Kubert v. Best, 75 A.3d 1214 (2013) and Gallatin v, Gargiulo, #10401 of 2015, Lawrence County, PA.

At some point, auto manufacturers and phone/electronics suppliers may choose or be forced to render texting while driving impossible. Until such a time, the trend against texting while driving continues.

The owner of a strip mall retained a realtor to list available property in its shopping center. A purchase agreement was secured and set a deadline to complete the sale. When the purchaser did not complete the sale, the realtor sued the purchaser for lost commission. See Beau Box Commercial Real Estate, LLC v. Pennywise Solutions, Inc., 2019-0114 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/23/19), 289 So. 3d 600. The case raised the issue of whether the realtor was a third-party beneficiary to the purchase agreement.

After the sale fell through, the realtor filed suit against the purchaser to recover commission for the sale of the property, attorney’s fees, and other costs. In response, the purchaser admitted to the breach of the purchase agreement but argued that the listing agent had no right to recover because it was not a party to the purchase agreement. The trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment in the realtor’s favor. The trial court held that the purchase agreement established a “stipulation pour autrui”(third-party benefit) for the realtor.

The court acknowledged that agents generally are not parties to purchase agreements. However, the language of the specific purchase agreement conferred a benefit in favor of both agents because it explicitly stated that a party defaulting on the purchase agreement “shall be liable” for realtor’s commissions, attorney’s fees, and costs incurred in the enforcement of the contract.

The court also rejected the purchaser’s second argument that it had to be “placed in default” before any cause of action could arise. In response, court found that, when a term for performance is fixed in a contract, the arrival of that term automatically puts the breaching party in default.

The result in Beau Box may be limited to its own facts. However, realtors and parties should now pay closer attention to the terms of purchase agreement, which can create benefits for non-parties to the contract.

Marty Golden has been practicing law based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for over thirty years, concentrating in civil litigation primarily involving injuries, property damage, insurance coverage, and contract disputes. Much of his practice is defending and advising real estate agents in suits by property buyers and sellers, but Marty also defends other professionals, insurance companies, manufacturers, and business owners. Marty has a special interest in all things procedural, because they are the rules of the road for litigators and knowing them better than his opponent gives him a leg up in court.