Randy Fontenot Case Summary

Plaintiff Randy Fontenot was driving in the city owned police car at high speeds. When he reached an intersection, FOntenot collided with defendant, Germaine Brooks and Wife, in their car. Fontenot was severely hurt, while Brooks’ wife was killed. Randy Fontenot is sued Brooks and his insurance company, Patterson Insurance. Then the DOTD was added as a defendant in this case because they were responsible for the unsafe intersection. At the trial court they ruled that 90% of the fault was on Mr. Brooks; Mr. FOntenot was liable for 10%; and the DOTD was not liable at all. The Fontenot's the filed for an appeal. The appellate court agreed with the trial courts but they said that Fontenot was not liable at all for the accident. They saide Mr. Brooks and the DOTD were each 50% at fault. Now they have appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Did the court of appeals use the right “standard of review” to change the jury’s facts of who was liable and who was at fault.
Holding: No they changed the judgement of the jury instead of deciding on
"In determining whether liability exists under a duty-risk analysis, a plaintiff must prove that the conduct in question was the cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, that [the] defendant owed a duty to [the] plaintiff which [the] defendant breached and that the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached." The court used a different set of principles to determine DOTD’s liability. “The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that: (1) the DOTD had custody of the thing that caused the plaintiff's injuries or damages; (2) the thing was defective because it had a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the DOTD had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and did not take corrective measures within a reasonable time; and (4) the defect in the thing was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's