220 So. 3d 845
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Christine Caminita was rear-ended on February 13, 2012 as a front-seat passenger; the vehicle was later rear-ended again on March 21, 2012. She sued for injuries allegedly caused by the February accident (suit filed March 14, 2012, i.e., before the March accident).
- Plaintiff had a long, well-documented history of chronic low-back problems (scoliosis, prior rod/fusion surgeries, L4-5 and L5-S1 pathology, pain management and heavy opioid use) and had been symptomatic and treating immediately before the February accident.
- After the March accident plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Voorhies, who concluded (based on plaintiff’s history) that her left sacroiliac (SI) joint pain originated with the February collision; plaintiff later had left SI joint surgery. Defendant’s expert attributed plaintiff’s complaints to preexisting lumbar pathology and adjacent-level degeneration.
- At trial the jury found plaintiff injured by the February accident and awarded $2,000 for pain and suffering and $1,719.20 for past medical expenses. The trial court declined to give jury instructions on the Housley presumption of causation.
- Plaintiff appealed arguing (1) the court erred by refusing the Housley instruction and (2) the jury interrogatories were ambiguous because they did not allocate causation between the two accidents. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to give Housley presumption instruction | Caminita: judge should have submitted Housley presumption to jury because there was no evidence of preexisting SI joint symptoms and plaintiff’s symptoms manifested after the Feb. accident | Cashio: plaintiff was not in good health before the Feb. accident; evidence shows longstanding symptomatic degenerative spine disease and subsequent March accident better explains symptom progression | Court: No error — trial court reasonably found plaintiff not in "good health" pre-accident and that evidence did not establish a reasonable possibility the Feb. crash caused the claimed SI joint condition; Housley instruction properly refused |
| Whether jury verdict/interrogatories were ambiguous as to causation between Feb. and Mar. accidents | Caminita: interrogatory asking whether "the accident" caused injuries is ambiguous (could mean Feb. alone or contribution), so award may be inadequate or require allocation | Cashio: no contemporaneous objection below; interrogatories were proper; plaintiff failed to preserve the issue for appeal | Court: Issue precluded — plaintiff failed to contemporaneously object to interrogatories at trial, so may not raise ambiguity on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La. 1991) (establishes presumption that injury resulted from accident if plaintiff was in good health before, symptoms appeared after and continuous, and reasonable possibility of causation exists)
- Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 650 So.2d 757 (La. 1995) (plaintiff must prove causation by preponderance; defendant may rebut Housley by showing other causes)
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (La. 2011) (trial judge has responsibility and broad discretion in formulating jury instructions)
- Adams v. Rhodia, Inc., 983 So.2d 798 (La. 2008) (same principle on jury charge discretion)
- Venissat v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 968 So.2d 1063 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2007) (upholding refusal to give Housley instruction where plaintiff was not in good health pre-accident)
- Jaramillo v. Lopes, 925 So.2d 559 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (Housley presumption inapplicable where preexisting symptomatic condition existed)
- Loconte Partners, LLC v. Montgomery & Assocs., 116 So.3d 904 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (standards of review and discretion on jury charge issues)