Labarrera v. Boyd Gaming Corp.
132 So. 3d 1018
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Patron slipped in Delta Downs lobby after custodian sprayed a cleaning substance with oil on a dust mop; video shows slip where spray occurred.
- Ex parte communication between defense counsel and treating physician during deposition led to exclusion of first deposition and admission of a second deposition at trial.
- Jury found patron 42% at fault; verdict awarded past medical expenses and general damages; husband sought loss of consortium.
- Trial court denied directed verdict on contributory negligence and allowed jury to consider Claudine’s comparative fault.
- Claims on admissibility and impact of ex parte communication, medical causation, and damages are appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denial of directed verdict on Claudine’s contributory fault | Labarrera burdened Boyd to prove Claudine’s contributory negligence | Boyd proved Claudine’s fault factors (shoes, gait, floor transition, see cart) | No; verdict reversed to 0% fault by Claudine |
| Whether the jury’s allocation of fault was manifestly erroneous | Jury should assign 0% fault to Claudine | Boyd proved some fault by Claudine | Yes; amended to 100% fault on Boyd |
| Whether exclusion of Dr. Gargas’ first deposition and admission of second deposition was reversible | Violation of La. Code Evid. Art. 510 taints trial | Totality of circumstances show no prejudice; adequate notice and cross-examination possible | No reversible error; trial integrity intact |
| Whether the jury properly denied past/future medical expenses | Labarrera entitled to claimed expenses | Medical testimony linked expenses to non-traumatic conditions; fibromyalgia and other issues argued | No manifest error; expenses not proven/properly linked; future expenses denied |
| Whether the general damages award was properly supported | General damages should reflect injury and pain | Evidence supports only soft-tissue injuries not fully caused by fall | No abuse of discretion; damages adequately supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. Mouton, 82 So.3d 364 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2012) (evidence exclusion may be non-prejudicial; preserve trial integrity)
- Peoples v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc., 38 So.3d 1209 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (ex parte communications; sanctions where appropriate)
- Boutte v. Winn-Dixie La., Inc., 674 So.2d 299 (La.3 Cir. 1996) (totality-of-circumstances; de novo review for tainted evidence)