151 So. 3d 828
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Kevin Wendel was rear-ended on Feb. 4, 2009; he developed neck and low-back injuries, underwent surgery and injections, and was diagnosed with chronic regional pain syndrome.
- Suit named the rear-ender (Terrell Gilbert) and insurers/related entities; liability was resolved for plaintiff on summary judgment; trial in June 2013 proceeded only on damages.
- Jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $3.87 million (past/future medical, pain and suffering, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and consortium awards: $50,000 to wife denied, $50,000 each to two daughters allowed).
- Defendants moved for JNOV/new trial and had sought directed verdicts on loss-of-consortium claims; trial court granted directed verdict for wife but denied it as to daughters; defendants appealed the denial and challenged excessive damages.
- On appeal the court reviewed directed-verdict and damages standards, affirmed denial as to daughters, affirmed allowance for wife, and upheld the general and special damages awards as supported by the record; request for frivolous-appeal fees denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict should have been granted for daughters' loss-of-consortium claims | Wendel argued sufficient evidence showed diminution of his relationship and services to daughters | Defendants argued insufficient evidence of consortium loss | Court: Denial of directed verdict affirmed — reasonable jurors could find loss of society/assistance for daughters |
| Whether directed verdict should have been granted for wife's loss-of-consortium claim | Wendel argued marriage was affected by injuries | Defendants argued no evidence that injuries affected marriage; marital issues predated accident | Court: Directed verdict for wife affirmed — no evidence linking injury to marital impairment |
| Whether general damages (pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment) are excessive | Wendel argued awards were inadequate and sought increase | Defendants argued the $550,000 (excluding children's consortium) was excessive | Court: General damages upheld — trial court/jury discretion not abused; award supported by medical and lay testimony |
| Whether special damages (past lost wages, future earning capacity, future medical/rehab) are excessive/unsupported | Wendel argued awards for wages and future medicals were proper and supported by experts | Defendants argued plaintiff's income and projected earnings were overstated and future medicals speculative | Court: Awards upheld — jury’s findings supported by record (medical testimony, vocational and economic reports); not clearly wrong |
| Whether appeal was frivolous warranting fees | Wendel sought frivolous-appeal damages and attorneys’ fees | Defendants argued appeal was not frivolous | Court: Denied — appeal raised issues defendants could reasonably pursue |
Key Cases Cited
- Simon v. American Crescent Elevator Co., 767 So.2d 64 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2000) (directed verdict standard and trial-court discretion)
- Menard v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 31 So.3d 996 (La. 2010) (standard for reviewing special-damages factual findings)
- Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La. 1993) (appellate review of general damages and role of trier of fact)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (caution against re-weighing evidence on appeal)
- Moody v. Cummings, 37 So.3d 1054 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (future medical-expense proof standard)
- Guillot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 50 So.3d 173 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (appellate review for highest/lowest point of discretion in damages)