Cay v. State Of Louisiana, Department Of Transportation And Development

631 So.2d 393 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Cay, a twenty-seven-year-old offshore worker, entered a barroom and stayed for an hour. He carried an opened beer with him. Five days later, Cay's body was discovered on a rock bank of the Little River, thirty-five feet below the bridge across the river. Cay would have had to cross the bridge in order to travel from Jonesville to his home. Evidence indicated he fell from the bridge. There was no evidence suggesting suicide or foul play. There was evidence that Cay was wearing dark clothes, was walking on the wrong side of the road for pedestrian traffic, and was intoxicated. The bridge, built in 1978. The side railings were thirty-two inches high, the minimum height under existing standards for bridges designed for vehicular traffic. There were no curbs, sidewalks or separate railings for pedestrian traffic, although it was well known that many pedestrians had used the old bridge to cross the river to communities and recreation areas on the other side. Ps filed this action against D, seeking recovery on the basis that the guard railings on the sides of the bridge were too low and therefore unsafe for pedestrians whom D knew were using the bridge and that D failed to provide pedestrian walkways or signs warning pedestrians about the hazardous conditions. The trial court rendered judgment for Ps holding that the fall was caused in part by the inadequate railing and in part by Cay's intoxicated condition. The court found that D breached its duty to pedestrians by failing to build the side railings to a height of thirty-six inches, as required by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for pedestrian railings. There was no direct evidence of why D fell. The court apportioned fault sixty percent to D and forty percent to Cay. The court of appeal affirmed. The court further stated, 'Had the railing been higher, the decedent might have been able to avoid the accident.' D appealed.