Victoria Grimes VS Maison Des Ami of Louisiana, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCLTIT NO 2012 CA 1762 I L J VICTORIA GRIMES VERSUS MAISON DES AMI OF LOUISIANA INC Judgment Rendered UL 2 4 2013 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No 537 787 The Honorable Wilson E Fields Judge Presiding James J Zito Attorney for Appellee Baton Victoria Grimes Rouge Louisiana Daniel A Reed Willie G Baton Attorneys for Appellants Jr Johnson Rouge Louisiana BEFORE Maison Des Ami of Louisiana Inc and Republic Vanguard Insurance Company PARRO WELCH AND KLINE J7 Judge William F Kline Jr retixed serving ad hoc by special appointment of the Supreme Gourt Louisiana KLINE J This is an appeal by defendants Maison Des Ami of Louisiana Inc Maison and Republic Vanguard Insurance Company following a jury trial in which plaintiff Victoria Grimes was found to be entitled to damages for injuries she suffered while at work on the property owned by Maison Defendants appeal the judgment rendered in accordance with the jury verdict For the following reasons we affirm the judgment FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter arose out of an incident in which plaintiff a mental healih worker who worked for Plantation Mental Health slipped and fell while at the Maison facility located at 1050 Convention Street in Baton Rouge Louisiana on November 9 2004 Maison is a group home that houses forty mentally six challenged individuals and homeless adults Plaintiff had several Maison residents as her clients and she visited the facility to discuss her clients medication The fall occuned shortly after 3 p in the hallway outside two shower rooms used 00 m by the residents of the facility Plaintiff did not see any water on the floor on her way into the bathroom but fell on her return After her fall the plaintiff noticed water on the floor and her clothes were wet Plaintiff contended that the water on the floor was the cause of her fall She denied that the cause of her fall was that her knee on which she had had surgery just gave out A jury trial was held on January 17 2012 through January 20 2012 After hearing all the evidence and arguments for both sides the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff finding no fault on her part The jury awarded her damages for past pain and suffering past medical expenses future medical expenses past mental anguish permanent disability past lost wages and future lost wages far a 2 total of 00 068 100 1 Following the jury verdict the trial court signed a judgment The defendants filed a timely motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial which were both denied Defendants appeal the judgment Plaintiff answers the appeal and requests that the amounts awarded for past pain and suffering past mental anguish and permanent disability be increased and that damages for future pain and suffering future mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life be awarded ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Defendants assign numerous errors which are summarized as follows The 1trial court ened in allowing the admission of certain evidence 2 The trial court erred in excluding a portion of the deposition of a witness even though the remainder of the deposition was admitted The 3jury erred in finding that the plaintiff carried her burden of proof on fault The 4 jury erred in finding that the plaintiff carried her burden of proof regarding causation of her injuries 5The jury improperly considered the amount of insurance limits available 6The damages awarded to the plaintiff were excessive Plaintiff answered the appeal claiming that the amount of damages for past pain and suffering past mental anguish and permanent disability are inadequate and requesting an increase in these amounts of damages She also sought awards for future pain and suffering future mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life STANDARD OF REVIEW Defendants seek to reverse both evidentiary rulings of the trial court and the s jury verdict Initially the standard of review for evidentiary rulings of a trial There is a discrepancy betwee the jby the trial court and the minutes and jury verdict dgment signed form The total amount of the signed judgment was I the minutes and jury verdict form reflect the lOQ068 but award to be 1 This was a miscalculation apparently due to a discrepancy or typo on the award for future 078 100 Ioss of wages earnings or impairment of eaming capacity for which he signed judgment provided 128 but 552 the minutes andjury verdict form depicied 128 62 3 court is abuse of discretion Brandt v Engle 00 La 6 791 So 3416 O1 29 2d 614 620 If the trial court has abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings 21 such that the jury verdict is tainted by prejudicial errors the appellate court should conduct a de novo review See McLean v Hunter 495 So 1298 1304 La 2d 1986 Errors are prejudicial when they materially affect the outcome of the trial and deprive a party of substantial rights Evans v Lungrin 97 97 La 0541 0577 98 6 2708 So 731 735 Thus a de novo review should not be undertaken for 2d every evidentiary error but should be limited to errors that interdict the fact finding process eld Win v State Department of Transportation and Development 01 01 La App 1 Cir 11 835 So 785 799 2668 2669 02 8 2d writs denied 03 03 03 La 5 845 So 1059 cert 0313 0339 0349 03 30 2d 60 denied 540 U 950 124 S 419 157 L282 2003 S Ct 2d Ed Consequently in reaching a decision on an alleged evidentiary error the court must consider whether the challenged ruling was an abuse of the trial court s discretion and whether the error prejudiced the adverse party cause for unless it s did reversal is not warranted YG v Upjohn Co 535 So 1110 1118 La allace 2d App 1 Cir 1988 writ denied 539 So 630 La 1989 see La Code Evid art 2d 03 Moreover the party alleging error has the burden of showing the error was prejudicial and had a substantial effect on the outcome of the case Brumfield v Guilminq 93 La App 1 Cir 3 633 So 903 911 writ denied 94 0366 94 ll 2d 0806 La 5 637 So 1056 Ultimately the determination is whether the 94 6 2d error when compared to the record in its totality has a substantial effect on the outcome of the case Wallace 535 2d So at 1118 To reiterate absent a prejudicial enor of law this court is not required to review the appellate record de novo BNUmfield 633 So at 911 citing Rosell v ESCO 549 So 840 La 2d 2d 1989 4 Defendants seek to reverse the j ury verdict in favor of plaintiff on the factual issues An appellate court cannot set aside findings of fact by the trier of fact in the absence of manifest errar ar unless those findings are clearly wrong Rosell 549 So at 844 If the findings are reasonable in light of the record reviewed in 2d its entirery an appellate court may not reverse those findings even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact it would have weighed the evidence differently Id In order to reverse a fact finder determination of fact an s appellate court must review the record in its entirety and 1 find that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding and 2 further determine that the record establishes that the fact finder is clearly wrong ar manifestly enoneous Stobart v State through Dep of Transp and Dev 617 So 880 882 La 1993 Thus t 2d when there are two permissible views of the evidence the fact finder choice s between them cannot be manifestly erroneous Id at 883 LAW AND ANALYSIS Evidentiarv Rulin s Other wronQs In their first assignment of error the defendants claim that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence of inspection findings by city and state agencies by admitting hearsay testimony and by permitting the testimony of an expert on the reasonableness of the conditions at Maison Defendants maintain that numerous inspection reports which the trial court admitted into evidence were offered in violation of Louisiana Code of Evidence article 404 which provides B Other crimes wrongs or acts 1 Except as provided in Article 4l2 sexual crimes evidence of other crimes wrongs ar acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith It may however be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive opportunity intent preparation plan knowledge identity absence of mistake or accident provided that upon request by the accused the prosecution in a 5 criminal case shali provide reasonable notice in advance of trial of the nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial for such purposes or when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding Emphasis added While defendants cite the first sentence of Article 404 they fail to B acknowledge the other reasons for which other wrongs or acts are admissible The defendants have the burden of showing the error was prejudicial and had a substantial effect on the outcome of the case Brumfield 633 So at 911 2d Defendants have made no showing as to prejudicial error or a substantial effect on the outcome of the case Absent this showing this court is jurisprudentially limited to accepting the trial court evidentiary ruling See Brumfield 633 So s 2d at 9ll citing Rosell 549 So at 844 2d An appellate court must place great weight on the trial court ruling of s relevancy and admissibility of evidence and should not reverse that ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion Louivere u Huey P Long Medical Center 97 La 45 App 3 Cir 6 697 So 1331 1337 writ denied 97 La ll 97 ll 2d 1859 97 7 703 So 1265 A trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence 2d which is related to a pattern See Louivere 697 So at 1338 2d Pursuant to Article 404 evidence of other crimes or misconduct is B inadmissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith However as previously noted evidence may be admissible for other purposes See La Code Evid art 404 State v Silguerq 608 So B 2d 627 629 La 1992 In the instant case the evidence of other acts was offered to prove a pattern showing that Maison had knowledge of the water on the floor and that it lacked any kind of plan or procedure to remedy the problems associated with running a group home Under these circumstances the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Maison lrnowledge of other incidents and its disregard of s 6 the danger in the face of that knowledge See Angeron v Martin 93 La 2381 App 1 Cir 12 649 So 40 44 94 22 2d Furthermore the record contains ample evidence far the jury to have concluded that Maison was negligent in its practices and procedures with regard to the showers at the facility Besides the reports of which defendants complain four employees of Maison testified that the problem with water on the floor in front of the shower was a chronic ongoing issue Vada Elliott a mental health professional who became interim Executive Director testified that there were ongoing problems with the patients at the facility failing to dry off in the shower and dripping water onto the floor in the hallway outside the showers Ms Elliott also testified that the staff was aware of the problems with water on the floor by the showers Vivian Jackson a house manager at Maison testified that every time one of the patients showered water would get on the floor Marvel Hawkins who had warked at Maison as direct care staff house manager and interim executive ctor dir testified that because the showers were not large enough far the patients to dry themselves off many residents came out of the shower or ran to their rooms tracking water onto the hallway Carolyn Mosely a mental health technician at Maison testified that she saw water on the floor basically every day caused by residents tracking out of the showers Ms Grimes the plaintiff testified that the day of the accident she fell because of water on the floor Thus there is sufficient evidence in the record that Maison had a problem with the residents tracking water from the showers and that there was water on the floor on the day of the plaintiff accident s Therefore any enor in admitting inspection reports that disclosed other problems at the facility was harmless error 7 Hearsav Defendants also claim that the trial court incorrectly admitted the hearsay testimony of Shante Webb Executive Director of Maison Ms Webb was asked to refresh her memory with previous deposition testimony Over defendants objection the trial judge allowed Ms Webb to agree that she earlier had testified that some of the residents mentioned that plaintiffJ fell because they were told that there was water on the floor The statement by Ms Webb is clearly hearsay in violation of Louisiana Code of Evidence article 801 which provides C earsay h is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the present trial or hearing offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted Although plaintiff refreshed her memory with her deposition testimony pursuant to Louisiana Code of Evidence article 612 the statements she made A were still hearsay and inadmissible Even if the refreshed testimony was offered for an improper hearsay purpose such as establishing that the plaintiff fell on water on the floor any such error was harmless The admission of hearsay testimony is subject to the harmless errar analysis Clement v Graves 04 La App 1 Cir 9 924 So 1831 OS 28 2d 196 204 The admission of a hearsay statement that is merely cumulative or f15 corrobative of other evidence is generally held to be harmless error Id at 205 The admission of Ms Webb testimony that some of the residents told her that s plaintiff fell because they were told there was water on the floor is cumulative and therefore is harmless error Similarly the defendants claim that Penny Blanchard who employed Ms Grimes as an evening caregiver for Ms Blanchard s invalid husband was impermissibly allowed to testify as to the plaintiff sstatements regarding her own 8 inability to work following the November 9 2004 accident We agree with the trial court that the plaintiff s own statement that she could not work is admissible Expert Testimonv The defendants final assignment of error relative to evidentiary rulings concerns the opinion of Dennis Howard a safety expert that the condition of the hallway at Maison was unreasonable Louisiana Code of Evidence article 703 provides tfacts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an he opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or befare the hearing If ofa type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence Mr Howard was accepted as a safety expert at trial and permitted to testify as to whether there was an unreasonable risk of harm at Maison An expert is entitled to rely on his perceptions or facts known to him at or before trial La Code Evid art 703 Mr Howard visited Maison in October 2007 Based on his observations and testing done that day he determined Yhat the hallway at Maison in front of the showers presented an unreasonable risk of harm Mr Howard also testified that t term reasonableness is one that has to be he applied with some sense of utility cost service and value coming from those things And certainly the concept of accident prevention is one that would be included in that It is well settled that the trier of fact is not bound by the testimony of an expert but such testimony is to be weighed the same as any other evidence The trier of fact may accept or reject in whole or in part the uncontradicted opinions expressed by an expert See Harris v State ex rel Department of Transportation and Development 07 La App 1 Cir 11 997 So 849 866 writ 1566 08 10 2d 9 denied 08 La 2 999 So 785 The opinions of Mr Howard were 2886 09 6 2d uncontradicted as defendants did not have an expert testify on their behalf The jury was free to accept or reject the opinions of Mr Howard under the facts ofthis case The trial court committed no error by allowing Mr Howard to testify as to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the risk of harm at Maison Deposition TestimonV Defendants also claim that the trial court erred in excluding a portion of the deposition of Dr Gray Barrow that was offered by defendants when the rest of the deposition was admitted by plaintiff The deposition testimony offered by the defendants is as follows Q ore M probably than not the back pain she was experiencing at the time Dr Isaza operated on her was not coming from her disc I can say that with any certainty I mean you heard me explain t one possible reason that she could still be hurting if that was the source of her pain even though he corrected that I mean the distribution of the symptoms that she had when I saw her I mean was almost classic I mean the L4 level and the LS nerve root comes out and goes 5 A down the side of your leg and into the big toe I mean that like what we s learned in our first anatomy class I mean I felt pretty confident that that s where her pain was coming from The trial court did not permit the above exchange into evidence as the question was asked by defendants at a deposition after defendants had already examined cross the witness Reexamination is allowed under La Code Evid art D 611 when new matters are brought out on redirect The matter of permitting examination recross is in the sound discretion of the trial court whose rulings will not be overturned in the absence of some showing of an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice State v King 355 So 1305 La 1978 Community Bank of 2d Lafourche v Motel Management Corp of Louisiana Inc 558 So 641 645 La 2d App 1 Cir 1990 10 In the present case no new matter was brought out on redirect entitling defendants to recross Dr Barrow under La C art 611 When no new issues are E raised on redirect examination recross is generally not proper State examination v Hidalgq 95 La App 5 Cir 1 668 So 1188 1194 Under the 319 96 17 2d facts of this case we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing this evidence We find no prejudice to the defendants in the present case inasmuch as the trial court made a determination well within its discretion Defendants complain that the trial court violated La C art 1450 P 4 A when it disallowed the additional deposition testimony Article 1450 4 A provides If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party an adverse party may require him to introduce any other part which in fairness should be considered with the part introduced and any party may introduce any other parts Defendants however fai to cite the beginning of La C art 1450 which P A states as follows A At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding any part or all of a deposition so far as admissible under the Louisiana Code of Evidence applied as though the witnesses were then present and testifying may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof in accordance with any of Yhe following provisions Emphasis added The trial court did not err in determining that the testimony of Dr Barrow on examination recross was not admissible under the Code of Evidence because no new matter was brought out on redirect entitling recross of Dr Barrow Therefore the trial judge could properly exclude the recross of Dr Barrow taken examination during a deposition 11 Plaintiffls Burde of Proofas to Fault Defendants contend that the jury erred in finding Maison at fault for the sdamages They base their claim on the fact that water can be found in plaintiff any house from a number of sources such as dropped ice splashed water or dripping water in any kitchen Therefore defendants claim that water on terrazzo floors around drinking fountains in public buildings on vinyl tile in a residential kitchen or on vinyl tile in the hallway outside the shower in a non profit residential building cannot be unreasonably dangerous A court of appeal may not set aside a jury findings of fact absent manifest s error or unless it is clearly wrong Rosell 549 So at 844 In light of the degree 2d of deference afforded to the fact finder in this case the jury we cannot say that the decision that Maison was at fault was clearly wrong The owner or custodian of a thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its ruin vice or defect only upon a showing that he knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the ruin vice ar defect which caused the damage that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care and that he failed to exercise such reasonable care La Civ Code art 1 2317 see Vinccinelli v Musso 01 La App 1 Cir 2 818 So 0557 02 27 2d 163 165 writ denied 02 La 6 818 So 767 The plaintiff has the 0961 02 7 2d burden of proving that 1 the property which caused the damage was in the custody of the defendant 2 the property had a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm to persons on the premises 3 the unreasonably dangerous condition was a cause in fact of the resulting injury and 4 that defendant had actual or constructive lrnowledge of the risk Vinccinelli 818 So 2d at 165 see also Farr v Montgomery WaNd and Co Inc 430 So 1141 1143 2d La App 1 Cir writ clenied 435 So 429 La 1983 Whether a thing contains 2d 12 an unreasonably dangerous condition is a mixed question of fact and law or policy that is subject to the manifest error standard of review on appeal Reed v Wal Mart Stores Inc 97 La 3 708 So 362 364 1174 98 4 2d In the instant case the parties stipulated that Maison is the owner and operator of a group home faciliry where plaintiff fell while walking down a hallway opposite the two showers at the facility During the trial the defendants also stipulated after much testimony to the same that the residents of the group home frequently got water on the floor when they took a shower In support of that stipulation the employees testified Vada Elliott the interim EXecutive Director at the time of the accident arrived at the scene shortly after the plaintiff fe1L The plaintiff informed Ms Elliott that she had fallen in the hallway by the showers on water that was on the floor mopped Ms Elliott observed that the area had been freshly Ms Elliott testified that some of the residents did not dry off in the shower and would drip water onto the floor The problem with the residents dripping water was described by Ms Elliort as an on problem which was going addressed at meetings with the residents Ms Elliott also testified that there was never any discussion by Maison as to putting mats or anything else in the hallway Ms Elliott further testified that she did not observe standing water in the area where the plaintiff fell but that water had been freshly mopped Vivian Jackson a house manager at Maison testified that after hearing the plaintiff yell she went to the scene helped the plaintiff off the floor and observed water on the floor that had come from the shower Ms Jackson was helped by Brent Fourrier a resident of Maison who was wet She also observed that the s plaintiff clothes were wet The plaintiff testified that after leaving the bathroom she fell right in front of the showers Ms Grimes also testified that the shower is pretty close to the 13 hallway at Maison She noticed once she was on the ground that there was water on the floor and her clothes were wet Ms Grimes also testified that while she did not see any water before she fell she did see water when she was on the floor It was reasonable from the evidence offered by the plaintiff for the jury to find an unreasonably dangerous condition existed at the facility which Maison did nothing to repair or cure Maison had knowledge that water from the showers commonly got onto the floors in the hallway by the showers Shante Webb the Executive Director of Maison testified that Maison had no documents to produce regarding the use of showers or problems with water on the floor The defendants presented no witnesses at the trial There was no evidence of any policies and procedures to clean the water from the floor once the hallway got water on it There was no testimony as to any warning signs used by Maison to warn visitors as to the water commonly found on the floor by the showers While defendants may not have known that water was actually on the floor on November 9 2004 there is ample evidence to show that Maison had constructive knowledge of water in front of the showers Defendants claim that there was not enough time for them to discover the water on the floor While defendants do not cite LSA 9 S 6they appear R 2800 to argue that plaintiff burden was not met because of the short time the water was s on the floor Louisiana Revised Statutes 9 6applies to a plainriff burden of 2800 s proof against merchants Maison is not a merchant Once a plaintiff in a slip and fall case establishes that a fall occurred and injury resulted from a foreign substance on the premises the burden shifts to the defendant to exculpate itself from negligence See Williams v Finley Inc 04 La App 3 Cir 4 1617 OS 6 900 So 1040 1043 writ denied OS La 1 918 So 1050 Despite 2d 1621 06 9 2d defendants argument that the hallway did not present an unreasonable risk of 14 harm because there was no evideticc that anyone eise had ever slipped or fallen in the hallway defendants presented no witnesses and no exculpatory evidence in this regard The trier of fact or jury finding of whether a defect creates an unreasonable s risk of harm is subject to a manifest error standard of review Reed 708 So at 2d 365 Because we find that the jury verdict was reasonable and supported by the s record we agree with the judgment of trial court Medical Causation Whether an accident caused a person injuries is a question of fact and s should not be reversed absent manifest error Housley v CeNise 579 So 973 2d 975 La 1991 Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of the injuries and a causal connection between the injuries and the accident See Yohn v Brandon 01 La App 1 Cir 9 835 So 580 1896 02 27 2d 584 writ denied 02 La 12 831 So 989 The test to determine if 2592 02 13 2d that but has been met is whether the plaintiff proved through medical testimony den that it is more probable than not that the injuries were caused by the accident Id Generally the effect and weight to be given medical expert testimony is within the broad discretion of the fact finder Id The law is well settled that where the testimony of expert witnesses differs the trier of fact has great even vast discretion in determining the credibility of the evidence and a finding in this regard will not be overturned unless it is clearly wrong Cotton v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 10 La App 1 Cir 5 65 1609 11 6 3d So 213 220 writdenied 11 La 968 So 522 1084 11 2 3d On review of the record we conclude that the jury finding of causation is s supported by the record and is not manifestly erroneous Clearly the jury found that the plaintiff injuries were caused by the November 9 2004 fall at Maison s 15 Even though plaintiff had pre conditions the defendants had ample existing opportunity to cross all of the medical providers of plaintiff examine Dr Larry Messina testified that the fall of November 9 2004 strained plaintif knee and s aggravated a pre back condition Dr Barrow testified that the plaintif existing s fall at Maison aggravated her pre problems with her back Dr Barrow exisiting also testified that the MRI taken of the plaintiff after the November 9 2004 fall showed a right L4 disc herniation which was not present on a previous NII2I and 5 that the disc hemiation was a result of the 2004 fall Dr Jorge E Isaza who performed surgery on plaintiff back in May 2005 also testified that the 2004 fall s caused the plaintiffls L4 disc herniation Dr Barrow testified at trial that the 5 fusion surgery perfarmed by Dr Isaza was necessitated by plaintiff fall on s November 9 2004 The plaintiff continued to experience back and neck pain following her 2005 surgery until at least 2010 Defendants offered no medical testimony to negate the testimony of Drs Messina Barrow and Isaza We cannot conclude that the jury was clearly wrong in finding medical causation in the presentcase Excessive Dama es Defendants assign as error that the damages were excessive and that plaintiff is not entitled to the medical specials and lost income the jury awarded An appeal court should rarely disturb an award of damages since great discretion is vested in the trial court Youn v Maritime Overseas Corp 623 So 1257 1261 La 2d 1993 cert denied 510 U ll 14 ll4 S 1059 127 L 379 1994 It is S Ct 2d Ed settled well that a judge or jury is given great discretion in its assessment of quantum of both general and special damages Guillory v Lee 09 La 0075 09 26 6 16 So3d 1104 1116 Furthermore the assessment of quantum or the 17 appropriate amount of damages by a trial judge or jury is a determination of fact 16 that is entitled to great deference on review Wainwright v Fontenot 00 0492 La 10 774 So 70 74 00 17 2d The role of an appellate court in reviewing general damages is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact Wainwright 774 So at 74 Youn 623 So at 2d 2d 1261 The initial inquiry by the appellate court is whether the award is a clear abuse of that much discretion of the trier of fact Youn 623 So at 1260 2d Reasonable persons frequently disagree about the measure of general damages in a particular case Youn 623 So at 1261 Only after it is determined that there has 2d been an abuse of discretion is a resort to prior awards appropriate and then only to determine the highest or lowest point of an award within that discretion Coco v Winston Indus Inc 341 So 332 335 La 1976 2d Defendants specifically complain about the medical special damages and lack of causation As stated above this court will not overturn the factual finding of inedical causation absent manifest error or the special damages absent an abuse of discretion Defendants have pointed to no abuse of discretion on the part of the jury with regard to the medical special damages A review of the medical testimony especially of Dr Isaza reveals that the jury could reasonably find that plaintiff could not return to work after the 2004 fall at Maison The record sufficiently supports the award of lost wages Insurance Limits Read tQ Jurv Louisiana Code of Evidence article 411 clearly provides that the amount of coverage under a policy shall not be communicated to the jury unless the amount af eoverage is a disputed issue which the jury will decide present case stipulated to the amount of the policy limits The parties in the During his opening statement counsel for plaintiff read the entire stipulation that included the amount 17 of the policy limits Defendants objected and the trial court overruled the objection We acknowledge that it is difficult to unring the bell However the party alleging error has the burden of showing the error was prejudicial to its case This requires proof that the error when compared to the record in its totality has a substantial effect on the outcome of the case L A Contracting Co Inc v Ram Indus Coatings Inc 99 La App 1 Cir 6 762 So 1223 1234 0354 00 23 d writ denied 00 La 11 775 So 438 2232 00 13 2d The defendants offer no showing that the errar was prejudicial The only argument offered by defendants on this issue is the following It is not a coincidence that the verdict came in at the level it did This to some extent accounts for the jury excessive damage award s The defendants have not canied their burden of showing prejudicial error Furthermore given that the jury found the plaintiff had no fault in causing her injuries and found her past and future medical special damages to be 456 we 870 cannot agree that reading the policy limits to the jury which awarded total damages of 1 resulted from prejudicial error 00 068 100 Answer to Appeal Plaintiff answers the appeal claiming that the jury awards of 50 for 000 past physical pain and suffering 50 for past mental anguish and 10 for 000 000 permanent disability are inadequate and should be increased Plaintiff also claims that an award for future physical pain and suffering future mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life should have been made by the jury Much discretion is left to the judge or jury in the assessment of general damages La Civ Code art 2324 In reviewing an award of general damages L 18 the court of appeal must determine whether the trier of fact has abused its much discretion in making the award Youn 623 So at 1260 2d Reasonable persons frequently disagree about the measure of general damages in a particular case It is only when the award is in either direction beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effects of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff that the appellate court should increase or reduce the award Short v Terminix Pest Control Inc 11 La App 1 2293 Cir 9 104 So3d 119 123 12 21 This court does not find that the award is beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effects of the particular injury to the plaintif Accordingly the plaintiff answer to the appeal s is denied ICLUSION COI For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed and the s plaintiff answer to the appeal is denied Costs of the appeal are assessed to defendants Maison Des Ami of Louisiana Inc and Republic Vanguard Insurance Company JUDGMENT AFFIRMED ANSWER TO APPEAL DENIED 19
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
