 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
LeBlanc v. Breaux12/13/2000
claim that he loved Ronald, and the loss of Ronald has changed him and caused him to have difficulty holding down a job.
Six months after Ronald was born, Ronald LeBlanc, Sr. said that he quit his job to care for Ronald so that Diane Copeland could return to work. Diane Copeland testified that she went back to work within eight weeks and that Ronald LeBlanc, Sr. took care of Ronald most of the time. When Ronald LeBlanc, Sr. began to do odd jobs for others, the couple started using Willett as a babysitter. Nonetheless, Ronald LeBlanc, Sr. fed, bathe and played with Ronald and taught him to walk. Diane Copeland said that Ronald LeBlanc, Sr. was devastated by the death and attempted suicide at least once by taking an overdose of Xanax. He does not visit Ronald's grave because he feels that he would not be able to leave. He thinks about Ronald every day. Diane Copeland testified that he probably has not fully dealt with Ronald's death.
Ronald LeBlanc, Sr. has a nine or ten-year old daughter in Georgia that he neither visits nor supports because, according to him, the mother asked him not to have anything to do with the child. He has not seen the child since she was three or four years old. He also has another son with Diane Copeland that was conceived and born after the death of Ronald. He has essentially abandoned that child because, after Ronald's death, he is afraid to be in his life. Ronald LeBlanc, Sr. testified that he cannot go through that again.
Based on the evidence, we find that the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of raising Diane Copeland's damages that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict. We further find that the evidence is not so overwhelming in favor of raising Ronald LeBlanc, Sr.'s damages. Therefore, we affirm the damages in his case.
Finally, our review of the record discloses several unresolved exceptions and claims which are not addressed by the parties. The record contains two exceptions of no cause of action, one by Breaux to the Plaintiffs' petition and one by Diane Copeland to a reconventional demand filed by Breaux. Also, Breaux filed third-party claims against Willett, Champagne and Austin that are not mentioned in the judgment. However, the trial judge granted directed verdicts in favor of Champagne and Austin during the trial, so we can presume from silence of the judgment that the reconventional demand and the third-party claims were denied. We find no error in denial of these claims. Furthermore, since the parties failed to urge that the peremptory exceptions of no cause of action be heard or judgment rendered and have not argued the exceptions on appeal, we conclude that the parties have waived or abandoned the exceptions. See: The Research Group, Inc. v. Sharp, 430 So.2d 165, 169 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, the trial court judgment is hereby affirmed. Costs of this appeal are to be divided among the parties.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|