174 So. 3d 1230
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Zimmerman sued Joshlan Raymo and corporate defendants after a July 14, 2012 incident on Highway 84, Winn Parish, where Raymo allegedly rammed Zimmerman’s Monte Carlo after a dispute.
- Raymo, employed by Future Expectations Community Care Services, LLC, was driving the Hummer involved; there is conflicting evidence about who drove the Monte Carlo during the impact.
- The jury found Raymo intentionally drove into Zimmerman’s vehicle, Zimmerman suffered injuries, and awarded $70,000 in general damages and $12,819.50 in medical specials; costs were taxed to Raymo.
- Zimmerman’s petition alleged negligence but evidence showed an intentional tort; the trial court allowed evidence of intent and did not grant Raymo a directed verdict on liability.
- Raymo appealed contending insufficient notice of an intentional tort theory and improper expansion of pleadings; Zimmerman answered on damages.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, upholding liability finding, causation under the Housley presumption, and the general damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zimmerman proved liability at trial. | Zimmerman identified Raymo as the fault for the ram into the Monte Carlo. | Zimmerman’s petition alleged negligence; trial should not consider intentional tort without amendment. | Raymo liable; record supports intentional act and denial of directed verdict. |
| Whether Zimmerman proved medical causation. | Medical testimony and records show injuries connected to the incident; Housley presumption applies. | No explicit medical causation testimony; presumption should not apply. | Presumption proper; causation submitted to jury and not clearly wrong. |
| Whether the general damages award is excessive or inadequate. | Award should reflect significant pain, mental anguish, and life impact from the incident. | Award was excessive; damages should be reduced. | $70,000 general damages not excessive; award supported by record and appropriate considering life impact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Detraz v. Lee, 950 So.2d 557 (La. 2007) (manifest error standard for factual findings)
- Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 35 So.3d 230 (La. 2010) (two-step manifest error review in civil trials)
- Khammash v. Clark, 145 So.3d 246 (La. 2014) (great weight given to findings of the trier of fact)
- Sledge v. Continental Cas. Co., 639 So.2d 805 (La. Ct. App. 1994) (expansion of pleadings by evidence; notice)
- Wilson v. Taco Bell of Am., Inc., 917 So.2d 1223 (La. Ct. App. 2005) (pleadings need not name a theory; facts may suffice)
- Housley v. Cerise, 579 So.2d 973 (La. 1991) (presumption of causation for post-accident injuries)
- Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 650 So.2d 757 (La. 1995) (elements of proof for causation; shifting burden via presumption)
- Henderson v. Gregory, 93 So.3d 818 (La. Ct. App. 2012) (evidence sufficient for Housley presumption)
- Bellard v. American Cent Ins. Co., 980 So.2d 654 (La. 2008) (role of discretion in general damages awards)