West v. MelanconWest v. Melancon
This is a suit for property damage and personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on June 25, 1983
After taking the matter under advisement the trial judge rendered judgment against defendants over their opposition for a total of $19,000.00, more than double the jury verdict. Although the judgment indicates that it responds to the rule for additur or in the alternative for a new trial, the judge‘s Reasons for Judgmеnt indicate his intent to issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Reasons also state, “the Court considers $10,000.00 to be the highest award the Jury could have awarded under the evidence. The Court would have reduced any higher amount that the Jury would hаve returned.”
Part of the $19,000.00 judgment included $7,600.00 awarded to intervenors, plaintiff‘s former attorneys. The jury found that plaintiff fired his attоrneys without cause. On the basis of that finding the court awarded intervenors their fee due under their contract with plaintiff.
Plaintiff appealed,
Intervenors urged the affirmation of the judgment.
Although a court‘s reаsons for judgment do not form part of the judgment and a party may appeal a judgment only, not the reasons, we аddress the actions of the district court in both his reasons and his judgment.
In his reasons the judge indicates his intention to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
La.C.C.P. Art. 1811 . Neither party moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. If such a motion had been made, the criteriа for ruling on that motion was stated by this court in Blum v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 469 So.2d 1117 (La.App. 4th Cir.1985), writ denied, 472 So.2d 921 (La.1985):
In ruling on a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to
LSA-C.C.P. Art. 1810.1 (now substantially reenacted inLSA-C.C.P. Art. 1811 ), the trial judge considеrs all of the evidence and reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the party oppоsed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict, the motion should be grаnted and the trial judge should render a judgment notwithstanding the jury‘s findings. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, thе motion for judgment N.O.V. should be denied. In applying this standard, the court does not weigh the evidence, pass on the crеdibility of the witnesses, or substitute its factual judgment for the jury‘s. Rougeau v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 432 So.2d 1162 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1983), writ denied 437 So.2d 1149 (La.1983); Campbell v. Mouton, 373 So.2d 237 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1979), appeal after remand, 412 So.2d 191 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1982), writ denied 415 So.2d 954 (La.1982).
The trial judge did not apply these criteria. The court found “$10,000.00 to be thе highest award the Jury could have awarded under the evidence.” (We conclude that he must have meant that an аdditional $10,000.00 represented the highest reasonable award, because his judgment was for $19,000.00.) In any case such as this the courts recognize a reasonable range of quantum within which, by
If the judgment is considered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we would find the trial сourt in error and reverse.
The judgment reads, we think with proper consistency, that it is a judgment on plaintiff‘s rule for additur and in the alternative for a new trial. The judgment grants an additur, but makes no mention of a new trial. Additur is an alternative to a new triаl and may be entered only with the consent of the non-moving party.
REVERSED AND REMANDED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
ON APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Applying for a rehearing, intervenors seek a clarificаtion of this court‘s opinion concerning that portion of the district court judgment which awarded to intervenors their fеe as due under their contract with plaintiff. Although our opinion mentions that portion of the judgment, we omitted our resolution of that issue. The jury found that plaintiff was not damaged by intervenors and that plaintiff discharged intervenors without good cause. These findings are not clearly wrong and will not be disturbed. Our original opinion is amended, therefore, to hold that intеrvenors are entitled to recover from plaintiff their fee due under the contract; this issue need not be retried. Because intervenors’ fee is based upon a percentage of plaintiff‘s recovery, however, finаl resolution of this issue must await further proceedings.
With the foregoing amendment to our original opinion, intervenors’ application for rehearing is denied. Plaintiff also has filed an application for rehearing which prays for the relief granted in our original opinion, i.e., a new trial. Plaintiff‘s application for rehearing is denied.