Sanders v. Hall, No. 8099

No. 8099 | La. Ct. App. | Sep 8, 1977

Lead Opinion

GULOTTA, Judge.

On remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court,¹ and on reconsideration of the record in this matter involving suspicious similarity of soft tissue injuries and treatment to five plaintiffs occupying the same automobile, as set forth in our earlier decision,² we are of the opinion that the medical testimony adduced at trial warrants a maximum general damage award of $800.00 to each plaintiff.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court awarding $2,000.00 as general damages to each of the plaintiffs — Robert Sanders, John Cantry, Lawrence Hudson, Michael Conner and Joshua Berry — is reduced to $300.00 to each of the above named parties. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

AMENDED AND AFFIRMED.

1 . Sanders v. Hall, 347 So. 2d 248" court="La." date_filed="1977-07-01" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/sanders-v-hall-7484637?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7484637">347 So.2d 248 (La. 1977). In re: Lev Hall, Jr. and N. O. Public Service, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. “Writ granted. The case is remanded to the court of appeal for reconsideration in the light of art. 5, Section 10(B), La.Const. and article 1934(3) of the Louisiana Civil Code.”

2 . Sanders v. Hall, 345 So. 2d 590" court="La. Ct. App." date_filed="1977-04-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/sanders-v-hall-7483807?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7483807">345 So.2d 590 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977).

---

Concurrence Opinion

STOULIG, Judge,

concurring.

I concur. The trial judge did find injury as a matter of fact. Appellate courts may only modify the trial court’s factual conclusions where there is manifest error. Conceding that this accident could have produced soft tissue injury, I concur in the award of nominal damages.

---

Concurrence Opinion

SCHOTT, Judge,

concurring.

In compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court, I have reconsidered the awards for general damage in the light of Art. 5, § 10(B), La.Const. and LSA-C.C. Art. 1934(3), and would adhere to my original opinion that an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court is clearly indicated under Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So. 2d 332" court="La." date_filed="1977-01-12" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/coco-v-winston-industries-inc-1815299?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1815299">341 So.2d 332 (1977). However, the action of the Supreme Court in this case seems tantamount to a reconsideration by that Court of the principles set forth in Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. and seems to mandate a reduction in this case.

Accordingly, I concur in the action taken by my colleagues.