## Facts

- On October 22, 1999, an auto collision occurred at an intersection in Alexandria, Louisiana, involving Charles Walker (defendant) and Bonnie Hamilton (plaintiff).
- Walker was driving north on a service road parallel to U.S. Highway 71; traffic in his direction was controlled by a yield sign.
- Hamilton was crossing U.S. Highway 71 and attempting to turn left onto the service road; her movement was controlled by a traffic signal.
- Hamilton testified that she entered the intersection on a green light.
- A police officer investigated, prepared an accident report, and issued no traffic citations.
- Hamilton sued Walker and Walker’s liability insurer (Allstate Insurance Company) for personal-injury damages allegedly caused by the crash; Hamilton also sued her own insurer (New Hampshire Insurance Company), though the appeal at issue was taken by Walker and Allstate.
- The case was tried to the court (bench trial). The trial court considered the accident report, Hamilton’s testimony, and deposition testimony from Hamilton’s treating physician and from Walker.
- In his deposition, Walker testified that traffic approaching the intersection had a green light, but he also claimed that after the accident he accused Hamilton of running a red light and that Hamilton did not respond.
- At trial, there was no evidence showing that Hamilton heard Walker’s accusation, and neither side questioned Hamilton about the alleged silence or argued it in closing.
- The trial court found Walker 100% at fault and awarded Hamilton total damages of $27,094.74 (general and special damages).
- Walker and Allstate appealed, contesting fault and quantum and asserting that Hamilton’s silence was an adoptive admission supporting comparative fault.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed manifest error in finding Walker 100% at fault for the collision.
2. Whether Hamilton’s alleged failure to deny Walker’s post-accident accusation that she ran a red light could be treated as an adoptive admission affecting fault allocation.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the amount awarded for general damages.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Walker was 100% at fault.
- The court rejected the adoptive-admission argument based on Hamilton’s alleged silence because the record did not establish that Hamilton heard the accusation, and the matter was not developed at trial through testimony or argument.
- The court found the general-damages award excessive on this record and amended the judgment to reduce general damages to $15,000, leaving special damages intact.
- Disposition: affirmed as to liability; amended as to general damages.

## Legal Principles

- In Louisiana, a trial court’s factual findings in a bench trial—including credibility determinations and allocation of fault—are reviewed under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard and are not disturbed when the record provides a reasonable basis for the finding.
- Silence may be treated as an adoptive admission only when the evidence shows the party heard and understood the statement and the circumstances were such that a reasonable person would be expected to deny it if untrue.
- An appellate court will not convert an undeveloped trial point into dispositive evidence on appeal when the factual predicate (such as whether the party heard the statement) is missing from the record.
- General damages are reviewed for abuse of discretion; when an award exceeds what the record can support, the appellate court may amend the award to an amount within the range supported by the evidence, while leaving proven special damages unchanged.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Third Circuit left in place the trial court’s finding that Walker failed to yield and was solely responsible for the intersection collision, declined to treat Hamilton’s alleged post-accident silence as an admission of fault because the record did not show she heard the accusation and the point was not tried, and amended the judgment only to reduce general damages to $15,000 while maintaining the special-damages award.


Hamilton v. Walker, 893 So. 2d 1002 (2005)