115 So. 3d 1253
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Rear-end collision at a red light in Alexandria, LA on Jan 7, 2010; Ford sues Tatum, employer Vital Oil Well Services, LLC, and Bituminous Casualty Corporation; fault admitted by stipulation, damages trial only.
- Jury awarded $45,000 past/future medical expenses, $10,000 past/future physical pain, $2,000 past/future mental pain, $8,400 past lost wages, $0 future lost wages, $5,000 loss of enjoyment of life.
- Judgment entered Sept 10, 2012; Ford appeals the general damages award.
- Court applies abuse-of-discretion standard for general damages per Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. and Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp.
- Ford contends the general damages award of $17,000 is abusively low given extensive medical treatment and ongoing complaints.
- Jury awarded substantial medical expenses ($45,000) which is inconsistent with the low general damages award; court amends general damages to $50,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the general damages award was abusively low | Ford argues $17,000 is too low for chronic symptoms | Tatum asserts four-month resolution; credibility issues support low award | Yes; award amended to $50,000 for general damages |
| Whether the medical expenses support a higher general damages award | Ford claims extensive treatment supports higher damages | Defendant contends medical records show resolution within four months | Yes; consideration of medical expenses supports increased total award |
| Whether appellate review should adjust the award beyond deference to the jury | Ford seeks higher award based on medical evidence | Discretion of jury should be respected unless abuse shown | Yes; appellate review of abuse of discretion led to increase to $50,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 773 So.2d 670 (La. 2000) (standard for general damages; no exact monetary formula)
- Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La. 1993) (great deference to factfinder; review for abuse of discretion)
- Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La. 1976) (use of prior awards to set lowest reasonable amount after abuse found)
- Stelly v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 83 So.3d 1225 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing damages in light of medical evidence)
- Keeth v. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Transp., 618 So.2d 1154 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1993) (defining general damages scope)
- Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So.2d 70 (La. 2000) (high degree of deference to factfinder; abuse of discretion standard)
- Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La. 1979) (necessity of abuse-of-discretion inquiry for damages)
- Cone v. National Emergency Serv. Inc., 747 So.2d 1085 (La. 1999) (procedure for reviewing general damages after abuse finding)