La. DOT & Dev. v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co. - 2002-2349 ( La. 05/20/03), 846 So. 2d 734

Rule:

Under the collateral source rule, a tortfeasor may not benefit, and an injured plaintiff's tort recovery may not be reduced, because of monies received by the plaintiff from sources independent of the tortfeasor's procuration or contribution. Under this well-established doctrine, the payments received from the independent source are not deducted from the award the aggrieved party would otherwise receive from the wrongdoer.

Facts:

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development ("DOTD") expended several million dollars to remove environmental pollution at a construction site for Interstate 49 in Shreveport, Louisiana. The United States government, through the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA"), thereafter reimbursed DOTD ninety percent of the remediation costs. DOTD sued, among other defendants, Kansas City Southern Railway Co. ("KCS") under the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act ("LEQA") to recover the clean-up costs, alleging that KCS polluted the site. The courts below held that DOTD's action was limited to the ten percent of clean-up costs it had actually incurred, and that DOTD could not recover the portion of the costs reimbursed to DOTD by the FHWA. On review, the department argued that, pursuant to authority granted by the FHWA, it was suing KCS on the FHWA's behalf; thus, it would not receive a double recovery. The department also contended that the collateral source rule prevented KCS from obtaining a reduction in liability for the department's removal costs, in large measure funded by the FHWA.

Issue:

May the DOTD seek judgment against KCS for the full measure of damages caused by its pollution? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The judgments of the trial court and the appellate court were reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court. The Court held that the collateral source rule applied in cases arising under the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 30:2001 et seq., at least where a damaged party was seeking reimbursement only for remediation expenses. The appellate court and the railway erroneously focused the analysis on whether the department would receive a windfall if allowed to recover the full measure of damages from the railway after having been previously reimbursed by the FHWA.