BATON ROUGE - Louisiana State University won't have to pay extra after forking over six figures to a man injured when a prank backfired.
Eddie Collier was opening a cooler during a training session when a snake lunged out of it at him. He jumped backward and fell to the ground, allegedly resulting in injuries to his left knee.
The snake was rubber. It had been part of a prank concocted by two LSU employees, John Miller and Clay Crain. Collier sued them and LSU.
Though LSU contested being liable for the negligent acts of its employees, it nonetheless offered to settle the case for $120,000. Collier and his wife took the deal, but then wanted more.
The Colliers first asked LSU to add $3,585.78 for court costs and interest. The school declined, so they asked the same of an East Baton Rouge District Court judge who granted their request.
"LSU asserted there was no legal basis to tax it with the Colliers' court costs and/or legal interest, because the offer was made without an admission of liability and no trial was held," First Court of Appeals judge Allison Penzato wrote in a July 22 opinion that overturned trial judge Wilson Fields.
Penzato noted legal interest on judgments is attached automatically in tort cases, regardless of whether plaintiffs ask for it in petitions or not. But there is no judgment in Collier's case, she wrote.
"Here, LSU was not cast in judgment," Penzato wrote. "LSU does not owe, nor has it agreed to pay, 'damages' as that term is defined above.
"Unlike an award of general damages and legal interest, the primary objective of an offer of judgment is not to restore the injured party to his pre-injury state through monetary compensation. Instead, LSU sought to reach a compromise to resolve the Colliers' claims, with the benefit of the penalty provisions of (Louisiana law) in the event the Colliers rejected the offer."
If a plaintiff rejects an offer of judgment then ultimately only recovers 25% or less in the final judgment, it is liable for the other side's court costs, exclusive of attorney fees.
As for the Colliers' court costs, Penzato said Judge Fields did not provide his reasoning for assessing them and that she found no basis to do so.
"By agreeing to a compromise, each party made concessions to settle the dispute," she wrote.
Judge Hunter Greene dissented, claiming the offer of judgment included confusing and conflicting provisions that make it ambiguous. He took issue with it being "inclusive" of all damages but "exclusive" of court costs and interest.
"I think these provisions create doubt that cannot be otherwise resolved - thus I would construe them against LSU under two Civil Code principles," he wrote.
Those laws penalize the drafters of agreements who use "doubtful" language by requiring courts to read them in the light most favorable to the other party.
"Here, LSU provided the ambiguous text contained in the offer and is also the party who should have given the 'necessary explanation' of exactly what amount of money was being included and excluded in full settlement of the Colliers' claims," Greene said.