Reeves v. Grove
72 So. 3d 1010
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Reeves alleges a dog attack by Grove's unrestrained German Shepherds while she walked her dog in New Orleans; Grove stipulated 100% liability for injuries caused by the dogs.
- Damages trial produced a total award of $83,500: $3,500 past medical/dental, $25,000 future medical/dental, $10,000 past/future disability, $30,000 past/future physical pain, $15,000 past/future mental pain; no award for loss of enjoyment of life.
- Reeves contends the total damages are shockingly low and asserts error in admitting evidence of funds from prior litigation and a surveillance video.
- Reeves also contends the trial court erred in not allowing Beverly Howze to testify as an adverse witness in her case in chief.
- Grove/defense argue the court did not abuse its discretion on evidentiary rulings and that the jury reasonably determined damages.
- Court affirms the jury award and the challenged evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenge to the damages award as shockingly low | Reeves argues the award is abusively low. | Grove contends the award falls within the trier of fact's discretion. | No abuse; award sustained as within discretion. |
| Admission of medical records from Dr. Savoie | Reeves claims admissibility of late-record evidence from Dr. Savoie. | Defense argues late disclosure; trial court did not abuse discretion. | No reversible error; exclusion upheld. |
| Admission of prior litigation award information | Evidence of Reeves's prior settlements unfairly influenced damages. | Evidence admitted for impeachment/credibility and probative value. | No reversible error; admissible for credibility. |
| Use of surveillance video to impeach claims | Video unfairly prejudices jury and misleads damages. | Video admissible for impeachment and corroboration of testimony. | No abuse; video properly admitted for impeachment. |
| Denied call of defense witness as adverse witness | Howze should be called as an adverse witness in the case-in-chief. | Trial court’s ruling within discretion; cross-examination available. | Harmless error; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La.1993) (great deference to jury on damages; appellate only for abuse of discretion)
- Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976) (abuses of discretion define when to disturb general damages)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (fact-finder's choice between permissible views not clearly erroneous)
- Stobart v. State Through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (limits on reviewing factual determinations; deferential standard)
- Guillory v. Lee, 16 So.3d 1104 (La.2009) (jurors have great discretion in assessing damages)
- Logan v. Brink's Inc., 16 So.3d 530 (La.App.4 Cir.2009) (economic damages and future expenses within jury's discretion)
- Belanger v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 159 So.2d 500 (La.1963) (evidence of settlements may be admissible for credibility)