Gaunt v. Progressive Security Insurance
92 So. 3d 1250
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- December 29, 2005, an Everett (Erazo) rented U-Haul van with auto transport, towing a Ford F-150, on I-10 near New Orleans; the towed vehicle came loose, injuring Mr. Gaunt in the other lane.
- Erazo reserved from U-Haul via telephone and picked up at a Citgo Snack and Pack dealer operated by Azhar Khan; Khan’s dealership stored equipment and accepted returns.
- Erazo’s Ford F-150 exceeded U-Haul’s recommended weight for towing on that auto transport, though it fit on the carrier; straps reportedly loosened, prompting a call to U-Haul’s emergency line.
- Erazo continued driving toward Louisiana after being told by U-Haul to drive to the nearest center, rather than wait for assistance; the truck eventually came off the transport and caused the collision, injuring Gaunt.
- Trial court allocated fault as Erazo 10%, Khan 10%, U-Haul Georgia 10%, and U-Haul International 70%; Gaunt was awarded $1,759,100.80 for Mr. Gaunt and $36,000 for Mrs. Gaunt; these allocations were challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fault allocation reallocation is appropriate? | Erazo primarily at fault; U-Haul liable for negligent system. | Trial court erred in dividing fault; Erazo shoulders more fault. | Manifest error; reallocate fault: Erazo 50%, Khan 10%, U-Haul Int. 40%. |
| Was ex parte/independent court research prejudicial? | Trial judge improperly reviewed outside materials influencing verdict. | Westlaw search by clerk and comments did not prejudice; no de novo review necessary. | No reversible error; no de novo review warranted. |
| Excessive damages or future medicals? | General damages and future medicals were supported by injuries and lifestyle impact. | Quantum excessive; challenge to future medical expenses. | General damages affirmed; future medical expenses upheld at $100,000. |
| Loss of consortium award inadequate? | Mrs. Gaunt’s award should be higher based on impact on marriage. | Award not required to rise above prior losses; within discretion. | Loss of consortium award affirmed at $86,000. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La. 1978) (criteria for apportioning fault after clearly wrong finding)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (five-factor guide to fault allocation)
- Lasha v. Olin Corp., 625 So.2d 1002 (La. 1993) (eggshell plaintiff and aggravation of preexisting condition)
- Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La. 1977) (abuse of discretion standard for general damages)