Allen J. Hebert, Jr. VS Anthony Zamora and Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL ST FII2 CIRCUIT Zoi2 ca Zo19 ALLEN J HEBERT JR VERSUS ANTHONY ZAMORA AND TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT Judgment Rendered 1 Appealed from the 32 Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Terrebonne Louisiana Trial Court Number 162 893 Honorable Randall L Bethancourt 7udge Joseph J Weigand Houma Jr Attorney for Appellant Plaintiff Allen J Hebert Jr LA David B Allen Attorney for Appellees Defendants Anthony Zamora Houma LA and Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government BEFORE PARRO WELCH AND DRAKE JJ wELCx J In this appeal plaintiff Allen J Hebert 3r contests the amount of a damage award entered in his favor against defendants Anthony Zamora and the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government Parish We affirm and issue this memorandum opinion in compliance with Uniform Rules of Appeal Rule Courts 1B 16 2 DISCUSSION On May 29 2010 Mr Hebert was driving a Chevrolet Tahoe on Louisiana Highway 659 in Terrebonne Parish and came to a stop at an intersection Mr Zamora who was driving a transit bus owned by the Parish was following behind Mr Zamora vehicle and also came to a stop behind the Hebert vehicle At some s point Mr Zamora released his foot from the brake and struck the rear of the Hebert vehicle The fact of the accident was not disputed at trial and the Parish admitted to liability Mr Hebert attorney acknowledged at the outset of the trial that the s impact did not damage Mr Hebert vehicle instead Mr Zamora bus hit the s s trailer hitch on Mr Hebert vehicle Mr Hebert claimed that the impact pushed s his vehicle forward It was also undisputed that the sixty old Mr Hebert year five had a pre back condition and also suffered from degenerative arthritis in existing his back and knees Mr Hebert asserted that although he had been treated for back pain and right pain prior to the accident after the accident he began to side experience pain on the left side of his body which he testified he did not have prior to the accident Mr Hebert sought to demonstrate that he sustained left neroe side damage as a result of the accident He introduced medical bills representing the cost of chiropractic treatments he had after the accident and he asked that the court award him future medical damages for continued chiropractic visits in the amount of 61 00 000 2 The only matter disputed at the trial was the extent of Mr Hebert injuries s as a result of the minor impact Following a bench trial the trial court awarded Mr Hebert damages in the amount of 20 for past present and future pain 00 000 and suffering and 46 for past medical costs taxed an expert witness fee as 24 468 costs and cast the Parish for all costs The trial court adopted the defendants pre trial memorandum opening statement and closing arguments as its reasons for judgment Mr Hebert filed a motion for a new trial which was denied In this appeal Mr Hebert contends that the trial court erred in not awarding future medical expenses He further claims that the pain and suffering award is inconsistent because the trial court award was based on a six injury as s month was argued in the defendants pre memorandum and adopted by the court trial while the past medical expense award spanned a time period of twenty months two from the date of the injury through the date of trial Mr Hebert submits that because the findings are inconsistent this court should determine the degree of injury and quantum and suggests that this court increase his pain and suffering award to 50 00 000 It is well settled that the trier of fact is given great discretion in the assessment of quantum both general and special damages Guillory v Lee 2009 0075 La 6 09 26 16 3d So 1104 1116 Furthermore the assessment of quantum or the appropriate amount of damages is a determination of fact one entitled to great deference on review Id Because the discretion vested in the trier of fact is so great and even vast an appellate court should rarely disturb an award on review The role of an appellate court 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 Id After thoroughly reviewing the record we find no abuse of the trial court s vast discretion in its assessment of quantum with respect to both the special 3 damage and general damage awards Nor do we find the awards to be contrary to the evidence contained in the record Accordingly we decline to disturb the awards entered by the trial court CONCLUSION Far the foregoing reasons the udgment appealed from is affirmed costs ofthis appeal are assessed to appellant Allen J Hebert Jr AFFIRMED 4 All
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.
