Michelle Adams Duhon VS William S. Duncan and Cynthia Duncan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0541 MICHELLE ADAMS DUHON VERSUS WILLIAM S DUNCAN AND CYNTHIA DUNCAN Judgment Rendered October 29 2010 Appealed from the Sixteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Mary State of Louisiana Suit Number 114 147 V Honorable Keith R J Comeaux Judge Bret C Beyer Sr Lafayette LA Counsel for Appellant Plaintiff Michelle Adams Duhon Romero Jackson B Bolinger Counsel for Lafayette LA DefendantsAppellees William S Duncan Cynthia Duncan and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ GUIDRY J Plaintiff appeals a trial court judgment finding her sixtyfive percent responsible for injuries she suffered as a result of falling off the elevated porch of a cabin located on land in the Atchafalaya Basin For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In the spring of 2005 Michelle Adams Duhon now Romero along with her two children and then fiancé Andrew Romero visited a camp owned by Cynthia and William S Duncan in the Atchafalaya Basin in St Mary Parish The camp was only accessible by boat Mrs Romero arrived at the camp just as it was beginning to turn dark and observed that the raisedframe cabin in which they would be staying was elevated above the ground on pilings and the steps ascending to the porch of the cabin lacked handrails Moreover the steps were only partially aligned to the opening on the porch that was framed as a doorway The alignment of the steps was such that a person ascending the steps would have to approach towards the left side of the doorway descending a person would have to exit on the right side of the doorway because the steps only extended in front of onehalf of the doorway opening The other half of the doorway faced empty space as no portion of the step extended in front of that portion of the opening Later that day after it had turned dark Mrs Romero went through the opening on the side of the doorway where the steps did not extend and fell sustaining several injuries As a result of her fall Mrs Romero sued the Duncans and the case eventually proceeded to a bench trial After considering the testimony and other evidence submitted by the parties the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Mrs Romero 1 Throughout this opinion the structure referred to as a camp is actually a cabin located on land that the Duncans leased from the State of Louisiana 2 awarding her general damages in the amount of 30 and special damages in the 000 amount of 13 However the trial court reduced the amounts awarded to 16 800 Mrs Romero by 65 percent finding her to be that degree at fault in causing the accident It is from this judgment that Mrs Romero appeals DISCUSSION In this appeal Mrs Romero alleges that the trial court failed to use the factors enunciated in Watson v State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Comp 469 2d So 967 974 La 1985 in allocating fault in this case and therefore committed legal error We find no merit in this contention While the trial court did not specifically refer to the Watson factors in comparing the fault of the parties a review of the trial court reasons for judgment s reveal that the trial court clearly considered the principles outlined in Watson in allocating fault Thus as the law provides that we must give great deference to the allocation of fault as determined by the trier of fact we cannot disturb the trial s court allocation of fault on appeal absent a finding that the allocation is clearly wrong See Fontenot v Patterson Insurance 090669 p 22 La 10 23 So 09 20 3d 259 274 An appellate court determination of whether the trial court was clearly s wrong in its allocation of fault is guided by the factors set forth in Watson Duncan v Kansas City Southern Railway Co 000066 p 11 La 10 773 So 2d 00 30 670 681 see also Estate of Francis v City of Rayne 07359 p 16 La App 3d Cir 07 3 10 966 So 2d 1105 1115 writ denied 072119 La 2 976 So 2d 08 15 176 In Watson the Court found that various factors may influence the degree of fault assigned including 1 whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger 2 how great a risk was created by the conduct 3 the significance of what was sought by the conduct 4 the capacities of the actor whether superior or inferior and 5 any 3 extenuating circumstances which might require the actor to proceed in haste without proper thought And of course as evidenced by concepts such as last clear chance the relationship between the negligent fault conduct and the harm to the plaintiff are considerations in determining the relative fault of the parties Watson 469 So 2d at 974 In making its assessment of fault the trial court found s Michelle own action of leaving her dog in the entry way of the camp was the primary cause of the accident She would not have tripped if not for the dog in the entry way However had the defendants constructed a porch rail or handrails on the stairs it is possible that she could have grabbed a rail to balance herself or the rail could have stopped plaintiffs fall off the porch and therefore her injuries would have been less traumatic We have examined the trial court allocation of fault in light of the Watson s factors set forth above Based on the facts of this case we do not find the allocation of fault constituted manifest error Considering the record in its entirety we are satisfied that it reasonably supports the conclusion that Mrs Romero was 65 percent at fault in causing the accident This assignment of error is without merit CONCLUSION For these reasons the trial court judgment is affirmed Appeal costs are s assessed to the appellant Michelle Adams Duhon Romero AFFIRMED El
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.
