Trenton Lamartiniere v. Matthew B. Jones
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CA-02229-COA
TRENTON LAMARTINIERE, TONY RACHAL AND
SHAWN BROUILLETTE
v.
MATTHEW B. JONES
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANTS
APPELLEE
8/30/2004
HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN, III
MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BENJAMIN A. LUKE
ERIC JOSEPH DILLON
FRANCES R. SHIELDS
CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ON JURY
VERDICT IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT.
AFFIRMED - 12/06/2005
BEFORE KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
BRIDGES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
On April 21, 2001, Matthew Jones’s vehicle hit the back of a another vehicle driven by Shawn
Brouillette with Tony Rachal and Trenton Lamartiniere riding as passengers. Jones admitted to hitting their
vehicle but denied that they received any damages. The case went to trial in Madison County Circuit Court
on August 19, 2004, and the jury determined that none of the three incurred any damages. They now
appeal arguing that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2.
Shawn Brouillette plays for a band called Jobe’s Tears and Trenton Lamartiniere sometimes plays
with the band. Along with Tony Rachal, they traveled to Jackson, Mississippi in order to perform a show
on April 21, 2001. On the way to perform, Matthew B. Jones allowed his vehicle to strike the rear portion
of their vehicle while they were stopped on the northbound lane of Old Canton Road waiting to get onto
the Natchez Trace.
¶3.
Their vehicle received some damage to the trailer hitch but it did not prevent them from towing a
trailer back to Louisiana and the members of the band also performed that evening after the accident. As
of the summer of 2002, they still had not performed any repairs to the trailer hitch on the 1995 Dodge Ram
truck. The three Louisiana residents also suspected that Jones totaled his vehicle or did more damage to
it. However, Jones testified that upon reattaching his radiator hose he drove his vehicle from the scene of
the accident.
¶4.
Brouillette, Lamartiniere, and Rachal all testified that they sought and obtained medical treatment
and incurred medical expenses arising out of the accident. Rachal testified to experience injury to his neck
back and left shoulder and pains that lead to him attending physical therapy with Dr. L.J. Mayeaux. On
cross examination he admitted to a previous head injury resulting from a gunshot wound in 1992. The
gunshot wound left Rachal with left-sided paralysis according to Jones’s expert Dr. Michael Winkelmann.
Rachal also attended physical therapy with Dr. Mayeaux for this gunshot wound about once a month.
Rachal estimated that his medical bill came out to, “about 31 hundred, and a little more.” Dr. Winkelmann
also reviewed Rachal’s medical records and in his opinion Rachal only received injury mostly to soft tissue
from a whiplash situation and “he could not find any other injury that was noted or appropriately
documented in the record,” as well as no permanent injuries as the result of this accident.
2
¶5.
Lamartiniere testified that he had increasing back pains with muscle spasms after the accident and
had to seek physical therapy. Lamartiniere also testified that he suffered back problems due to a prior
injury while working for a sprinkler company in 1999 and had to work with a physical therapist and a
chiropractor because of it. Dr. Winkelmann confirmed that Lamartiniere had three previous car accidents
that also effected his thoracic and lumbar spine. Dr. Winkelmann rendered that he had a soft-tissue injury
to the cervical, lumbar, and thoracic spine but that the records reveal that he did not have any continued
problems. Lamartiniere estimated that his total medical bills equaled approximately $4000 dollars.
¶6.
Brouillette testified that he sought medical attention from a doctor a week and a half after the
accident because of back pain that locked up to the point that he could not move. However, Brouillette’s
medical records showed that he did not seek medical attention for two months after the accident. He also
testified that he had to seek a specialist because of the accident; however, he never had to stop playing the
keyboards in his band, which he did standing up. Winkelmann testified that the only potential injury that
Brouillette did sustain from the accident was a whiplash injury to the cervical spine. Brouillette testified that
he incurred about $5000 in medical bills because of the accident. X-rays and a subsequent MRI also
showed that Brouillette had a small disc protrusion in the L5-S1 region of his back.
¶7.
The case went to trial in Madison County Circuit Court on August 19, 2004, and Jones stipulated
to negligently causing the accident. However, Jones’s disputed that he caused any of Brouillette,
Lamartiniere, or Rachal’s injuries. The jury entered a verdict for Jones determining that none of the three
incurred any damages. They now appeal arguing that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight
of the evidence, although they failed to move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
ANALYSIS
3
¶8.
Brouillette, Lamartiniere, and Rachal contend that since Jones conceded negligence and since
conceded the existence of minimal injuries then a reasonable jury could not issue a verdict in Jones’s favor
because it would go against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. “In determining whether a jury
verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court must accept as true the evidence
which supports the verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its
discretion in failing to grant a new trial. Only when the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight
of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb
it on appeal.” Wal-Mart Stores v. Frierson, 818 So.2d 1135, 1143 (¶16)(Miss. 2002).
¶9.
However, Jones also points out that, “Mississippiappellate practice requires that in a civil jury case,
a post-trial motionfor judgment notwithstanding the verdict is necessary for appellate review if the appellant
wishes to contend that judgment should have been granted as a matter of law.” Harrison v. McMillan,
828 So.2d 756, 762 (¶20)(Miss.2002). The appellants failed to challenge the sufficiency of the verdict at
the trial level by filing a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict preventing the trial court from
hearing this argument. In Harrison, the court procedurally barred the appellant from challenging the weight
of the evidence since they failed to move for a judgement notwithstanding the verdict. Harrison, 828
So2.d at 763-764 (¶¶22-23) Similarly, Brouillette, Lamartiniere, and Rachal are procedurally barred from
challenging the sufficiency of the weight of the evidence relied upon for this jury verdict.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, CJ., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.
