Sloan v. Mouton
82 So. 3d 364
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- CeCe Sloan was injured in an April 2007 car crash with an underinsured driver; liability was admitted by the tortfeasor and insurer, with Sloan settling policy limits of $10,000 from the tortfeasor and UM carrier Shelter Mutual paying $15,000 plus $5,000 medical pay; Sloan sued Shelter for remaining damages.
- The jury initially awarded $120,450, including specific amounts for past medical, future medical, past wages, and pain-and-suffering, with zero future earning capacity and no loss of enjoyment of life.
- The trial court granted additur increasing total damages by $70,000, allocating $30,000 more to physical pain and suffering, $25,000 more to mental pain and suffering, and $15,000 for loss of enjoyment of life, bringing total to $190,450.
- Shelter appealed arguing: (i) causation finding, (ii) waiver/consent to additur and no-new-trial right, and (iii) additur amount. Sloan cross-appealed accusing ex parte communications and errors on future medical expenses and wages.
- The appellate court amended the future medical expenses award to $10,000 (up from $1,600) and affirmed the rest of the judgment as amended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the additur was proper and waived alternative new trial | Sloan contends additur should stand; Shelter consented to additur and waived new trial rights | Shelter argues lack of written consent and preserved right to new trial | Additur affirmed; waiver found and absence of written consent not reversible error |
| Whether causation for shoulder/hand injuries was established | Causation supported by multiple doctors | Evidence conflicting; some doctors said no causation | Reasonable factual basis supported causation; affirmed finding that accident caused injuries |
| Whether ex parte communications tainted trial | Ex parte communications violated Art. 510 and 1465.1 | Harmless error; no prejudice to outcome | Ex parte communications violated privileges, but no reversal warranted given similar outcome |
| Whether future medical expenses were properly awarded | Future care proven; cost estimates uncertain but need shown | Award too low to reflect probable costs | Amended to $10,000 for future medical expenses; abuse of discretion to award only $1,600 |
| Whether past wage loss and future earning capacity were properly awarded | Wages and potential future earnings inadequately compensated | Evidence supported the jury’s cautious assessment; no error | Jury award for past wages sustained and future earning capacity denied; upheld the overall damages framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleming v. Acadian Geophysical Services, Inc., 827 So.2d 623 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2003) (standard for overturning a jury verdict requires no factual basis for the finding)
- Miller v. Chicago Ins. Co., 306 So.2d 355 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1975) (additur guidance for substantial under- or misawards in general damages)
- Basco v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 909 So.2d 660 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2005) (awarding future loss of enjoyment of life where diminished function affected activities)
- Accardo v. Cenac, 722 So.2d 302 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1998) (consent to additur and preservation of appeal rights where written consent not provided)
- Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 895 So.2d 631 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2005) (ex parte communications with treating physician—trial court abuse of discretion in some contexts)
- Boutte v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 674 So.2d 299 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1996) (ex parte communications impacting credibility concerns)
- Corbello v. Iowa Production, 850 So.2d 686 (La.2003) (remitti tur/additur decisions and procedural timing concerns)
- VaSalle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 801 So.2d 331 (La.2001) (interlocutory nature of some additur/remittitur rulings; efficiency rationale)
- Hortman v. Louisiana Steel Works, 696 So.2d 625 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1997) (privilege and sanctions related to medical communications)