## Facts

- Doyle Watson invited the Creel family to deer hunt on the Watson farm in Mt. Hermon, Louisiana, on December 29, 1981, after deer damaged the farm’s vegetable garden.
- Hunters were placed along a field edge to cover likely deer approaches.
- Earl Creel’s minor son, Shane (about 12), participated and used a high-powered rifle.
- Shane accidentally shot and killed Doyle Watson during the hunt.
- The survivors sued Earl Creel and his liability insurer for wrongful death, alleging Earl negligently entrusted a high-powered rifle to a 12-year-old, failed to instruct him adequately, and failed to supervise him.
- Defendants contended Doyle Watson caused the accident by entering the hunting area without wearing required hunter-orange and without signaling his presence.

## Issues

1. What standard of review governs appellate review of a civil jury’s factual findings: the “clearly wrong/manifestly erroneous” standard or a “reasonable evaluation of credibility” formulation.
2. Whether, under Louisiana comparative fault law, a jury’s allocation of 100% fault to the decedent and 0% to the hunter-defendants was manifestly erroneous.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court held the court of appeal used an improper standard of review.
- The correct standard is that factual findings may be set aside only if clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.
- Applying that standard, the Court concluded the jury’s assignment of 100% fault to Doyle Watson was clearly wrong given record evidence of negligence by Shane and Earl Creel.
- The Court reversed the judgments for defendants and reallocated comparative fault among the responsible parties rather than leaving all fault with the decedent.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate courts must apply the “clearly wrong/manifest error” standard to jury or trial-court factfinding; affirmance cannot rest solely on whether a verdict reflects a “reasonable evaluation of credibility.”
- Under comparative fault, courts must allocate fault among negligent actors when the evidence supports shared causation; assigning all fault to one actor is erroneous where other negligence contributed.
- Comparative fault allocation should consider factors including: each actor’s awareness of danger versus inadvertence, the magnitude of risk created, the purpose of the conduct, relative capacities of the actors, and any extenuating circumstances affecting judgment.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed a defense verdict that placed full responsibility for a hunting-accident death on the victim, reaffirming manifest-error review and requiring comparative fault to be allocated in light of all parties’ contributing negligence.


Watson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 967 (La. 1985)