WATTS v. DOMINO PIZZA (2026)

Defendants, Earlrondous Smith; Domino's Pizza, L.L.C.; and Chubb ACE American Insurance Company, Domino's auto insurer, appeal a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, Jennifer Watts, following a bench trial. Specifically, the trial court found Smith was liable for the motor vehicle incident at issue, Domino's was vicariously liable, and the incident caused Watts's injuries. After review, we conclude the trial court's finding of causation was manifestly erroneous. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.

HISTORY AND APPEAL

On October 20, 2020, the passenger's side mirror of an 18-wheeler tractor/trailer driven by Earlrondous Smith and owned by Smith's employer, Domino's Pizza, L.L.C., struck the driver's side mirror of an 18-wheeler tractor/trailer driven by Chaz Tew, a student driver earning his commercial driver's license. Coastal Truck Driving School owned the truck driven by Tew and employed Jennifer Watts, a driving instructor sitting in the front passenger seat of the Coastal truck.

The incident occurred on South Range Avenue in Denham Springs, Louisiana in an area where the traffic lanes are ten feet wide, two feet less than the average lane width. At the time of the incident, the Coastal truck was stopped at a red light in the right turning lane. Smith drove the Domino's truck in the lane immediately to the left of the Coastal truck, which had a green light. The trucks’ mirrors overlapped and made contact as the Domino's truck drove through the intersection. The contact cracked both truck mirrors, but neither truck sustained any other damage.

On October 18, 2021, Watts filed suit for personal injuries against Smith, Domino's, and Chubb ACE. A bench trial was held on November 15, 2023 to determine liability and causation for Watts's alleged right shoulder, neck, and back injuries. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court rendered judgment on July 3, 2024, finding Smith was liable for the incident and Domino's was vicariously liable. As to causation, the trial court found that “lay and medical testimony establish[ed] more likely than not that [Watts] suffered injuries.”² Watts was awarded $11,000.00 for past medical expenses and $15,000.00 for past physical pain and suffering for a total damage award of $26,000.00.³ No written reasons were issued.

Defendants timely filed this suspensive appeal, wherein they argue the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding Watts sustained any injury and in awarding any damages. Defendants contend that Watts was not injured in this “no impact” and “no force” incident. (Emphasis original.) They further assert Watts failed to causally link her shoulder injury and neck and back complaints to this incident, attacking Watts's credibility and citing her history of similar complaints and numerous accidents and falls predating this incident. See Schwartzberg v. Guillory, 2016-0753 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/17/17), 213 So.3d 1266, 1270 (In a personal injury suit, the plaintiff is required to establish a causal link between the tortious conduct and her injuries or an aggravation of her pre-existing condition. Proof must be by a preponderance of evidence.) Defendants do not challenge the trial court's liability finding or the amount of the damage award. Therefore, the sole issue presented is whether the trial court's factual finding of causation was manifestly erroneous. See Moore v. Germania Select Insurance Company, 2023-0946 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/31/24), 391 So.3d 59, 62-63.

In response, Watts asserts the trial court's ruling was based on credibility determinations and a choice between two permissible views of the evidence. Therefore, she maintains the trial court's factual findings cannot be manifestly erroneous. See Moore, 391 So.3d at 63.

CAUSATION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

To reverse a factfinder's determination under the manifest error standard of review, an appellate court must undertake a two-part inquiry: (1) the court must find from the record that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trier of fact and (2) the court must further determine the record establishes the finding is clearly wrong. Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La. 1993); Irwin v. Brent, 2024-01043 (La. 6/27/25), 413 So.3d 342, 345-46 (per curiam). The issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was reasonable. Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882; Irwin, 413 So.3d at 345-46. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Moore, 391 So.3d at 63.

However, where documents or objective evidence so contradict the witness's story, or the story itself is so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face, that a reasonable factfinder would not credit the witness's story, the court of appeal may find manifest error or clear wrongness, even in a finding purportedly based upon a credibility determination. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 845-46 (La. 1989); Irwin, 413 So.3d at 346.

FACTS ESTABLISHED AT TRIAL 4

The Incident

Watts testified that she was sitting in the front passenger seat, facing forward, with her seatbelt and shoulder harness on when she heard “a bang.” Watts was asked, “[B]efore that time you did not see the [Domino's] truck at all, correct, because it's behind you and coming from the other side[?]” Watts responded, “No, I had not seen it.” She was unsure how fast the Domino's truck was going but testified that it hit the Coastal truck “going fast,” and that Smith “flew past” them.

Later, contrary to her prior testimony, Watts stated that she saw the Domino's truck approaching from her peripheral vision and “that truck never was in a lower gear, it was in a high gear, and he was going fast.” Watts was certain that Smith was going at a “fast pace because he did not break his gears down[,] so he had to be in a high gear to go fast. When you're going slow[,] you're going in a slow gear[,] and he was going fast. So[,] his gears was high in gear.” According to Watts, Smith hit them going “so fast” that the Coastal truck “rocked” to the right, causing her to fall against the passenger side door and window. She stated the Coastal truck “shook” and tilted once but confirmed it was not moved on the roadway. Watts stated that the Domino's truck hit the side of the Coastal truck but also stated she did not know which parts of the trucks made contact.

Tew, the student driver, was seated in the driver's seat with his seatbelt on, facing forward, waiting for the traffic light to turn green to make a right turn. Tew testified that he heard a “smack” but was unsure what happened until he saw the Domino's truck drive past and noticed the damage to the driver's side mirror on the Coastal truck. Tew, who was seated closest to the point of contact, did not recall feeling the force of the truck and confirmed “there was no pain at all for [him] and [he] was the closest one to it[.]”

Smith described hearing “a little rattling noise” as he “rolled” through the intersection with a green light. He was unsure what happened until he pulled over after traversing the intersection and saw the mirror on the passenger side of the Domino's truck was cracked. Smith estimated that he was going 20-25 mph and denied any shaking or movement in the cab of his truck. He did not feel any force and was not jolted or thrown around inside the truck; he felt nothing when the mirrors made contact. Smith confirmed the mirror interaction was the only contact between the trucks and that neither truck sustained damage other than the cracked mirrors. After the incident. Smith observed that the bracket holding the mirror on the Domino's truck was not broken or bent; the screws that held the bracket into the mirror were not pulled out.

Defendants called Joshua Tekell, who the trial court accepted as an expert in accident reconstruction. Tekell inspected the Coastal truck, which he and Watts estimated weighed approximately 30,000 pounds with the trailer. He located a fracture line or point of impact on the mirror, which he explained indicates the mirrors overlapped “only by a few inches.”⁵ Tekell testified that, because the travel lanes were so narrow, both trucks could be in their respective lane and the mirrors would still interact. Tekell marked the “area of overlap” in the photo below, included in his expert report:

Tekell's inspection of the Coastal truck also revealed the original mirror housing was still on the truck, undamaged and in use. Only the glass inserts for the upper and lower mirrors were replaced, and Tekell opined the lower mirror housing was likely snapped back into place. Tekell located “black plastic rub marks” on the Coastal truck's mirror “from the abrasion” of the two mirrors coming together. The rub marks are depicted in photos included in Tekell's report:

Tekell also explained that the stalk, or the connection between the mirror and the body of the tractor, has a ball and socket so that it rests naturally to the side. To move the stalk from this position, it must be lifted and swiveled forward or backward. Tekell opined the design purpose of this is to keep the mirror from folding on its own due to wind drag “when you're going down the road[.]” Tekell testified that the force of the contact between the trucks did not induce the lift that was required to fold the mirror stalk. The mirror stalk remained stationary during the contact between the mirror casings. There was no damage to the stalk. “These forces weren't great enough to break the stalk[.]”⁶ Tekell determined there was no structural engagement between the trucks. Tew likewise testified the mirrors did not intersect enough to break the appendage that holds the mirror on the truck, and there was no damage to the door.

Based on the physical evidence, Tekell determined there was a “very light interaction” between the trucks. He opined the contact would, in no way, redirect the Coastal truck or change the speeds of travel for either truck. Tekell also relied on Watts's deposition testimony wherein she stated there was movement inside the Coastal truck. He calculated there was approximately six inches of movement inside the Coastal truck when the mirrors connected and explained the truck was designed to absorb more force “rolling down the road” than the force it sustained by the mirror contact.

Tekell stated that Watts's seat was equipped with a full suspension system. Additionally, the cab of the truck was mounted to the frame by three airbags and two shock absorbers to cushion the ride. Tekell opined the truck's air ride system and the suspension seat “easily” compensated for the “minimal force” generated by the mirror contact and counteracted it for the safety of the occupants. According to Tekell, the Coastal truck is naturally built to take shifting, and the force exerted during this incident was nothing outside of the design parameters of this truck. “[T]his would be nothing significant to the cab of the truck.” He explained that “everyday activities” exert greater force than the force exerted on the truck during the mirror encounter.

Tekell concluded that Watts's description of the motions of the truck - shaking, tilting, and rocking – was not consistent with the mirror interaction.⁷ After hearing Tew's testimony, Tekell stated that his description of the incident “makes sense” and matched his findings from the scientific analysis.

Injuries and Prior Accident and Medical History

Lt. Paul Steagall, Uniform Patrol Commander for the Denham Springs Police Department, investigated the incident at the scene. Relying on his report, Lt. Steagall testified that he observed the two trucks had “struck mirrors” and noted the damage to both trucks as a minor deformity.⁸ None of the passengers indicated to him they were injured, and no one requested an ambulance.

Contrary to Lt. Steagall's testimony, Watts testified that she told the investigating officer she was hurt. However, she agreed no ambulance was called to the scene. Watts maintained at trial that she felt pain in her neck, back, and right shoulder immediately after the incident. Nevertheless, she completed Coastal's incident report the same day as the mirror encounter but did not identify any injuries. She likewise did not file a workers’ compensation claim as a result of injuries purportedly sustained in this incident.

Tew testified that he did not observe anyone to be injured. “Everybody exited the truck fine. Nobody was hobbling around holding anything.” Smith recalled seeing Watts at the scene and testified that she did not say she was hurt or injured and did not ask for any kind of medical assistance.

Watts saw her primary care physician, Dr. Nagaratna Reddy, eight days after the incident but did not mention it or report related injuries.⁹ Watts first sought treatment for injuries purportedly related to this incident on November 5, 2020. The records from this chiropractic visit state that Watts was involved in an “impact collision” with the Domino's truck going 50 mph. According to the records, the Domino's truck “side swiped the [patient's] vehicle” and Watts was surprised by the impact.

Jasmine Scott, D.C., chiropractor, referred Watts to nurse practitioner, Wanda Pezant, FNP-C, on November 19, 2020, because Watts was “in a lot of pain that day[.]” However, Watts did not see Pezant until March 10, 2021.¹⁰ Pezant's records from this visit state that Watts was an unrestrained passenger involved in a motor vehicle collision on October 20, 2020 and was evaluated by Dr. Reddy following the collision. Pezant's records also reflect that Watts reported no prior injuries. The evidence clearly establishes these statements are incorrect.

Watts's medical records confirm that she began treating for neck and back pain following a car accident in 2009. Treatment continued into 2010. Between November 2017 and August 2020, Watts received intermittent treatment for neck and back pain after being involved in numerous car accidents and slip and fall incidents.¹¹ More recently, Watts treated with Scott from May 28, 2020 through August 25, 2020 for low back and neck pain, among other complaints, stemming from a May 2020 car accident. On her initial visit, Watts relayed that the right side of her body hit the car door during the May 2020 accident. Watts also treated with Pezant from June 18, 2020 through August 18, 2020 for neck and back pain related to the May 2020 accident.

Scott and Pezant testified, and Watts agreed, that her neck and back complaints were the same following this incident as they were in August 2020. Watts testified that she did not report prior injuries when she sought treatment following this incident, because she “got past” those injuries with treatment and medication. Watts maintained “this injury” sustained in the mirror incident was “more life-threatening.”

Conversely, Pezant testified that Watts was not discharged from care in August 2020 and her treatment was not complete. At that time, Watts appeared to be “in a great deal of discomfort,” so Pezant referred Watts to an interventional pain specialist for consideration of neck and low back epidural steroid injections. Pezant testified that, to the best of her knowledge, Watts did not see the interventional pain specialist. Finally, lumbar and cervical MRIs performed before and after this incident show “very” and “pretty much completely” similar findings.

Regarding Watts's right shoulder, she first sought treatment in 2017, after a slip and fall incident. Then, in January 2018, an emergency room physician opined that Watts may have a torn rotator cuff following an on-the-job incident.¹² A few months later, Watts presented to an orthopedist with significant right shoulder pain, who noted the “possibility of a cuff tear.” Although a right shoulder MRI was recommended three times as Watts continued to experience right shoulder pain, one was not performed.

Watts failed to disclose this history to Dr. Mark Field, orthopedic surgeon, when she began treating with him in July 2021 for right shoulder pain. Dr. Field testified that, on her first visit, Watts described the mirror incident as “a big truck hit the driver's side,” which Dr. Field referred to as “an accident of significance.” At that time, Watts advised Dr. Field that she had no prior problems with her right shoulder. Dr. Field testified that he was unaware that Watts had previously received treatment for her right shoulder, including an injection, until the day before his deposition on November 2, 2023. Prior to that, Dr. Field was “not aware of anything.”

When presented with Watts's accurate medical history, Dr. Field confirmed that Watts “clearly had symptoms and problems with her shoulder that were similar to what I saw when I first saw her.” Although an August 2021 MRI confirmed a right rotator cuff tear, Dr. Field could not determine from the MRI when the injury occurred. After learning how the mirror incident occurred, Dr. Field testified that he did not think “the accident in question” would cause significant damage to the rotator cuff, unless Tew slammed on the brakes or Watts braced herself against the cab. The record establishes neither of these occurred.

Dr. Chambliss Harrod, orthopedic spine surgeon, evaluated Watts in July 2022 at defendants’ request and offered a second medical opinion. Dr. Harrod testified that, during his examination, Watts reported prior neck and back pain but reported she had no prior shoulder problems. Instead, Watts represented to Dr. Harrod that her shoulder injury was new and related to the mirror incident.

Dr. Harrod explained that, if the accident reconstruction did not show there was any significant force on the inside of the cab, he was unsure how a rotator cuff injury “would have happened in this type of setting.” He opined that it was possible that a low energy mechanism like falling against the truck door or window could reaggravate a rotator cuff tear. However, Dr. Harrod “wouldn't say [it was] likely” and could not state it was more probable than not that an incident of this nature could trigger symptoms of a torn rotator cuff. He confirmed it is “no more likely than anything in the regular course of life[.]” Dr. Harrod testified that he was “not quite sure how that would specifically reaggravate a rotator-cuff tear from a traumatic etiology.” Dr. Harrod was unable to relate causation to the mirror incident after “full review” of Watts's medical records.

ANALYSIS

Although the trial court did not provide reasons for ruling, the judgment in favor of Watts indicates the trial court found the force of impact was sufficient to cause injury. After careful consideration of all evidence and testimony presented at trial, we find no factual basis in the record to support this unreasonable, clearly wrong conclusion.

Watts's testimony that the Coastal truck rocked, tilted, and shook with such force that it caused her to fall into the passenger door and window is implausible on its face. Additionally, the physical evidence and Tekell's testimony and opinions so contradict Watt's testimony that a reasonable fact finder would have discredited her story. See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. State Through Department of Transportation and Development, 97-0716 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/8/98), 712 So.2d 216, 222, writ denied, 98-1241 (La. 7/2/98), 724 So.2d 209.

Photos in the record show the mirror on the Coastal truck was cracked, not shattered, and the lower housing unit popped out. The fracture line, as well as rub marks on the exterior of the mirror housing, confirm the mirrors overlapped by mere inches. Additionally, as Tekell explained, these travel lanes are so narrow that the mirrors touched, although each truck was inside its respective lane. This was not an “impact collision.” It was the mirror of one 30,000-pound truck/trailer being rubbed by another. The stalk was not broken or replaced, and the force of the interaction was not sufficient to lift the stalk enough to move the mirror inward or outward - a stalk designed to withstand wind drag but which can be moved manually.

Watts offered no other testimony or evidence to explain how this incident caused or aggravated her alleged neck, back, and right shoulder injuries.¹³ Thus, we find the trial court was manifestly erroneous in concluding that Watts carried her burden of proving causation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Schwartzberg, 213 So.3d at 1270.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the July 3, 2024 judgment and render judgment in favor of defendants, Domino's Pizza, L.L.C., Chubb ACE American Insurance Company, and Earlrondous Smith, and against plaintiff, Jennifer Watts. Costs of this appeal shall be paid by plaintiff.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because, although I likely would have ruled differently, I do not believe the trial court, the trier of fact in this matter, committed manifest error in its finding of causation. Causation is a question of fact. Green v. K-Mart Corp., 03-2495 (La. 5/25/04), 874 So. 2d 838, 841. A trial court's findings of fact may not be reversed absent manifest error or unless clearly wrong. Stobart v. State of Louisiana, through Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So. 2d 880, 882 (La. 1993). An appellate court must review the record in its entirety to determine whether the trial court's finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Id.

Where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). When the trial court's findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error standard demands great deference to the factfinder's conclusions, because “only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding and belief in what is said.” Id. Thus, where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Id.

The trial court had the opportunity to evaluate Jennifer Watts’ live testimony, which it obviously found to be credible. All of the points raised by the appellants in their well-reasoned brief and highlighted during oral argument were presented to the trial court during trial. Although I may have found differently, considering the testimony of Watts and her treating physician, Dr. Mark Field, I cannot say that the trial court was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in its finding that the October 20, 2020 accident caused Watts’ injuries.

FOOTNOTES

2.   After Watts concluded her presentation of evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict, which is appropriate only in a jury trial. See La. C.C.P. art. 1810. Where the case is tried by a judge only, the appropriate remedy for dismissal of the case at this stage is a motion for involuntary dismissal. See La. C.C.P. art. 1672; Andersen v. Succession of Bergeron, 2016-0922 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/12/17), 217 So.3d 1248, 1253 n.8, writ denied, 2017-0760 (La. 9/22/17), 227 So.3d 825. Nevertheless, we consider them both the same motion. The trial court took the motion under advisement, which it implicitly denied in the judgment in favor of Watts.

3.   Watts was also awarded costs of trial in the amount of $4,000.00.

5.   Tekell was unable to examine the Domino's truck involved in the incident, because it was no longer available. However, he relied on an exemplar truck to obtain the physical dimensions of the Domino's truck and to determine how the trucks fit into their lanes of travel and to calculate the overlap of the mirrors.

6.   Smith testified that he observed the Coastal truck at the scene and confirmed he did not see any damage to the truck other than the cracked glass.

7.   Tekell relied on Watts's deposition testimony to complete his expert report, wherein he explained that Watts testified that the Domino's truck came by fast and hit them. According to Tekell, Watts described the impact as causing the whole truck to shake and tilt and everybody in the truck to move and shift. Watts stated the cab rocked a little back and forth. As set forth herein, Watts provided similar testimony at trial. Tekell's expert report states that the Domino's truck did not sustain damage; however, Smith testified that the mirror was cracked. Tekell was provided with Smith's deposition prior to trial and, therefore, learned the mirror on the Domino's truck was cracked. Nevertheless, Tekell's expert opinions remained unchanged.

8.   Neither driver was issued a citation.

9.   Watts explained that Dr. Reddy is “just a general medical doctor,” someone to see for “colds and flus and personal problems with [her] body.” Although Watts reported injuries to Dr. Reddy related to a slip and fall in the past, she testified it occurred at home and was “personal.” We note, however, that Watts reported back pain to Dr. Reddy after falling in Walmart in 2017.

10.   Other than a COVID diagnosis in December 2020, the record does not explain why Watts waited nearly four months to see Pezant. Notably, Watts's COVID diagnosis did not prevent her from treating with Scott in January and February 2021.

11.   Watts testified that she was involved in four car accidents and four slip and fall events prior to the October 20, 2020 incident.

12.   Watts slipped while walking on top of a tractor/trailer in January 2018. Watts grabbed onto a ladder and prevented herself from falling to the ground by hanging by her hands until she secured her footing.

13.   The trial court did not award future medicals and limited the special damages award to past medicals ($11,000.00). The general damage award of $15,000.00 likewise signals the trial court's finding that Watts sustained an aggravation of one or more pre-existing conditions. At the close of trial, Watts asserted that the Housley presumption applied because she was “feeling good before this accident.” Under Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973, 980 (La. 1991), when a plaintiff can show she was in good health prior to an accident and symptoms appear thereafter, there is a presumption that the injuries resulted from the accident, provided that medical evidence demonstrates “a reasonable possibility of causal connection between the accident and the disabling condition.” See McBride v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 2024-01519 (La. 6/27/25), 413 So.3d 452, 476 n.31 (discussing the Housley presumption and noting it was statutorily abrogated in the most recent legislative session. See Acts 2025, No. 18, § 1, effective May 28, 2025, enacting La. C.E. art. 306.1.) There is no indication the trial court applied this presumption, which would be a factual finding. See McBride, 413 So.3d at 476-77. Tellingly, Watts does not urge application of the presumption on appeal and there is no indication the trial court made the factual finding that the Housley presumption applied. Therefore, we do not consider the issue.

PENZATO, J.

Balfour, J., dissents and assigns reasons Fields, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Judge Balfour