Godchaux v. Peerless Insurance Co.
140 So. 3d 817
| La. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Nov 24, 2010, a debris-laden truck flip caused by Campbell struck on-duty deputy Godchaux’s Tahoe, injuring his back.
- Godchaux and his wife sued Campbell, Moody & Price, and its insurer for damages.
- Dr. Bain, an alleged biomechanics and causation expert, testified for the defense; the jury awarded past/future damages and a loss of consortium.
- The trial court admitted Bain’s testimony over objections; plaintiffs appealed the admissibility and damages.
- The court reverses the admissibility ruling, conducts de novo review, and increases several damage awards: future medical, pain/suffering, enjoyment of life, and consortium.
- Concluding, the court increases future medical expenses to 242,833.00, pain/suffering to 150,000.00, enjoyment of life to 50,000.00, and consortium to 20,000.00; costs against the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Bain's testimony | Godchaux argues Bain is not qualified and his methods unreliable. | Bain is qualified and his biomechanical analysis is admissible under Daubert. | Bain's testimony excluded as unreliable; gatekeeping error identified. |
| Future medical expenses award | Godchaux contends $100,000 underestimates future medical costs. | No challenge to award; evidence insufficient for higher amount. | Award increased to $242,833.00. |
| Future lost wages/earning capacity | Godchaux argues for damages for future lost wages/earning capacity. | No entitlement due to evidence issues and voluntary position changes. | No award for future lost wages or earning capacity. |
| Loss of enjoyment of life | Godchaux suffered diminished lifestyle and activities due to injuries. | No prior damages for enjoyment of life were proven. | Award increased to $50,000.00. |
| Pain and suffering | Godchaux's pain and suffering warranted greater compensation. | Existing award adequately reflects pain and suffering. | Award increased to $150,000.00. |
| Loss of consortium | Godchaux’s wife suffered substantial disruption and diminished relationship. | Existing award should stand or be modestly adjusted. | Award increased to $20,000.00. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability/relevance of expert testimony)
- City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chem., Inc., 158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir. 1998) (triad test for reliability and admissibility of expert testimony)
- Cheairs v. State, 861 So.2d 542, 861 So.2d 542 (La. 2003) (low threshold to qualify as expert; experience suffices)
- Davis v. Martel, 790 So.2d 767 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2001) (force-of-impact testimony not determinative of injuries)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 188 So.2d 166 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1966) (caution against using impact force to prove extent of injuries)
- Taylor v. Progressive Sec. Ins. Co., 33 So.3d 1081 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2010) (upholds some biomechanical testimony in low-speed crashes but not causation extent)