Lauren Fields VS Brenda Saucier and Curtis Saucier
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1635 LALJREN Q FIELDS VERSUS BRENDA SAUCIER AND CURTIS SAUCIER 1 DATE OF JUDGMENT APR 2 9 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 549 DIV 23 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE 131 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE WILLIAM A MORVANT Mary E Heck Barrios Denham Springs Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Harry L Shoemaker III Baton Rouge Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellant Lauren Fields Brenda Saucier BEFORE KUI PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ IN Disposition AFFIRMED KIJHN J appellant Defendant Brenda Saucier appeals the trial court judgment s awarding damages to plaintiff Lauren Fields for personal injuries Fields appellee sustained when two of Saucier sdogs bit her We affirm FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND When Brenda and her husband Curtis evacuated Orange Texas in anticipation of the landfall of Hurricane Rita they stayed with Fields in her single wide approximately sixty long trailer located in central Baton Rouge The foot Sauciers arrived with five dogs and three cats where they joined Fields and her three cats in the two bedroom mobile home The dogs ranged in size from about 60 lbs to about 100 lbs four of the dogs were part Boxer and the fifth dog was a part Shepherd mix Although it was initially expected that the Sauciers would stay a few days because their mobile home in Orange was destroyed by a tornado they stayed in Fields home about six weeks In the morning hours of November 6 2005 as the Sauciers were preparing to return to Orange two of the dogs bit Fields on her hands and arms She was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Earl K Long Medical Center where she was treated and released to seek additional medical care from her personal physician Fields subsequently filed this lawsuit After Saucier filed an answer and discovery was conducted the matter proceeded to trial The trial court listened to 1 It is undisputed that since the commencement of litigation Saucier husband Curtis died s Although Curtis was named as a defendant Curtis estate has not been substituted as a party s plaintiff judgment was rendered solely against Brenda and on appeal no complaints have been raised against Curtis 2 testimony admitted medical records into evidence viewed photographs of Fields injuries taken shortly after the dog bites and examined her permanent scars Articulating oral reasons for judgment the trial court concluded that Saucier was liable to Fields for her medical expenses and general damages in the amount of 000 45 A judgment in conformity with the trial court determinations was s subsequently signed and this devolutive appeal followed On appeal Saucier contends the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court imposition of liabiliry She also challenges the quantum of the trial s s court general damages award Liabili La C art 2321 sets forth the liability an owner of an animal has far the damages it causes stating in relevant part The owner of an animal is answerable for the damage caused by the animal However he is answerable for the damage only upon a showing that he knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that his animal sbehavior would cause damage that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care Nonetheless the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person s provocation of the dog The manifest error standard of review applies to all factual findings including sufficiency of the evidence challenges Hall v Folger Coffee Co 1734 2003 La 4 874 So 90 98 Barnett x Saizorz 2008 La 04 14 2d 99 0336 App lst Cir 08 23 9 994 2d So 668 672 The fact finder reasonable s evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed on review where conflict exists in the testimony Unless documents or objective 3 evidence so contradict a witness story or the story itself is so internally s inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable fact finder must discredit it this court may not reverse See Stobart x State Dep tof Transp and Deu 617 So 880 882 La 1993 2d 83 Challenging the sufficiency of the evidence Saucier maintains that the much more believable and probable scenario of facts should be conclusively inferred from her testimony Saucier urges that Fields testimony was totally at odds with common sense and human experience We disagree Although Saucier stated that she heard her husband shout loudly Get away from those dogs several times she also testified that she did not see the dogs bite Fields But Fields dog that included and clamped unequivocal testimony Boxer and Shepherd onto her left hand was who At the that Spot weighed same a large mixed breed about 100 lbs time Wink jumped up a slightly smaller mixed breed dog that included Boxer and Labrador who weighed about 60 bs clamped onto her right hand Because a trier of fact is free to believe in whole or part the testimony of any witness see Scoggins v Frederick 98 La App 1814 lst Cir 9 744 So 676 687 writ denied 99 La 3 756 99 24 2d 3557 00 17 2d So 1141 the trial court did not err in believing Fields version of events over inferences that may have been drawn from Saucier s testimony Saucier has offered no documentary evidence that contradicts Fields version of events nar is Fields version internally inconsistent or so implausible on its face that the trial s court decision to credit it constitutes error The trial court imposed liability under a negligence theory See La C art 2321 see also Pepper u Triplet 2003 La 1 864 So 181 199 0619 04 21 2d 4 stating negligence liability under traditional duty analysis We initially note risk that it is undisputed thaY Spot and Wink bit Fields and that as a result she sustained injuries to her hands and arms And clearly Saucier had the duty to protect Fields from injuries from her dogs See Pepper u Triplet 864 So at 199 2d In order to support an award of damages based on negligence the record must show that Saucier knew or should have known that her animals behavior would cause damage On this element the trial court stated ve Igot the testimony of Dorothy Delores Vasquez and Fields who indicated that animals may Saucier advised them that some of these bite m not quite sure what she told Vasquez I but basically warned the children to stay away from the animals Fields testified that from prior discussions Wink had bitten both Mr and Ms Saucier In furtherance of the question of whether these animals could cause damage Pve got Saucier who admits that Wink and Spot or Roxie during the trip from Orange to Baton Rouge apparently got muzzles off and fought in the car Pve got that testimony confirmed by Fields likewise that when they got to her home Wink had been injured due to a fight Roxie was aggressive towards Spot So the testimony of a11 three witnesses indicates that the combination of Spot Roxie and Wink was troublesome So ve we got the knowledge element We find no error in the trial court finding that Saucier knew or should have s known that Wink and Spot had dangerous propensities In addition to the lrnowledge element of Article 2321 the record must support findings that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care and that the owner failed to do so i the legal causation and e breach of duty elements under the traditional duty analysis Insofar as these risk elements the trial court stated Could the damage have been prevented Saucier said I put leashes on them for the specific purpose of trying to take them out of the 5 trailer to leave But she doesn hold onto the leashes t She lets them go It is undisputed that Spot was wearing a leash at the time he bit Fields and that Saucier failed to hold onto his leash Fields testimony supports an inference that Wink who was tied to the kitchen table was aroused by Spot presence s Fields stated that Wink had pulled the kitchen table in order to reach her when he jumped on her Thus a reasonable factual basis exists to support the trial court s finding that Saucier failed to prevent the damage ishe breached her duty to e protect Fields when she failed to hold onto Spot leash And we have found no s legal error in the trial court determination that Saucier could have prevented the s incident by holding onto Spot leash ithat Saucier failure to hold onto s e s s Spot leash was the legal cause of Fields injuries See Bellanger v Webre 0720 2010 La App lst Cir 5 65 So3d 201 207 writ denied 2011 11 6 08 1171 La 9 ll69 So3d 1149 legal cause presents a legal question and 16 requires a proximate relation between the actions of a defendant and the harm which occurs and such relation must be substantial in character Accordingly the record supports the trial court imposition of liability against Saucier s Quantum of General Dama es Saucier contends the trial court award of 45 in general damages is s 000 excessive She asks that this court reduce that amount General damages involve mental or physical pain and suffering inconvenience loss of gratification or intellectual or physical enjoyment or other losses of lifestyle that cannot be measured definitively in terms of money McGee u A C and S Inc 2005 La 7 933 So 770 774 The trier of fact 1036 06 10 2d 6 is accorded much discretion in fixing general damage awards La C art 1 2324 Cheramie v Horst 93 La App lst Cir 5 637 So 720 1168 94 20 2d 723 The discretion vested in the trier of fact is great even vast so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages Youn v Maritime Overseas Carp 623 So 1257 1261 La 1993 cert denied 510 2d S U 1114 114 S 1059 127 L379 1994 Ct 2d Ed The record shows Fields had medical expenses in excess of 5 She 000 had permanent scarring that the trial court was able to view under a close examination at Saucier request Fields described what she observed immediately s after the mauling She stated The blood the cuts on my arms the pain I am a big woman and there was fat I thought it was muscle but it was fat poking through and I turned over my hand and I could see the bones beneath my little finger exposed Fields was taken by ambulance to the hospital She was given morphine for the pain while the wounds were washed and the numerous stitches were made which included 19 on just her left hand and arm Fields described that her hands felt like they were on fire She detailed the intense physical pain she endured immediately upon attack and throughout her treatment She was released with an extension block stack splinting in her right hand Fields was unable to use either hand and went to her mother home where she s was cared for by a home health nurse For the first several days Fields was unable to dress herself or engage in any activity that required her to use her hands Fields participated in follow medical treatment from November 2005 up through 7une 2007 She actively felt pain in the bite sites and took prescription 7 medication for that pain through March 2006 As of the trial date although she had regained mobility in her hands and had no permanent nerve damage Fields had residual numbness on the left hand along the side from her little finger She has permanent disfigurement from the scars which is more pronounced on her left hand and arm Fields has also a lingering wariness of interaction with domesticated animals In light of the undisputed intense pain she endured along with the extensiveness of her injuries the residual numbness and the permanent disfigurement we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court award of 45 s 000 to Fields for general damages DECREE For these reasons the trial court judgment is affirmed Appeal costs are s assessed against defendant Brenda Saucier appellant AFFIRMED 8 j
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
