 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ruttley v. Lee5/17/2000
te harm that is severe and apparent, (FN9) but not to compensate for the anguish and distress that normally accompany an injury to a loved one under all circumstances. (FN10).
The Supreme Court noted that the observance of the injury -causing event that causes the decedent's injuries in the first place definitely entitles the decedent's loved ones to recovery bystander damages. Id. at 1280. Further, the Supreme Court notes that recovery of damages for mental anguish has almost never been extended to one who observed the victim's suffering at a place other than where the injury-causing event occurred or at a time not closely connected to the event. Id. at 1279.
In a footnote in Trahan, 728 So.2d at 1282, the Supreme Court stated that:
In Lejeune, this Court stated that "the essence of the tort is the shock caused by the perception of the especially horrendous event.... The emotional injury must be directly attributable to the emotional impact of the plaintiffs observation or contemporaneous sensory perception of the accident and immediate viewing of the accident victim." 556 So.2d at 570, n. 11 (internal quotations and citations omitted). For the same reasons, recovery is not permitted when the plaintiff has merely been informed of the accident. See, e.g., Chamberlain v, State, Through D.O.T.D., 624 So.2d 874 (La.1993) (no recovery when victim's parents learned of accident from others).
In this case, Mrs. Ruttley did not see her daughter's body, but saw the canvas covering the car and her daughter's body when she arrived at the scene. From her observations and the representations of others, she was able to ascertain that her daughter did not survive the car crash. Clearly, she was able to realize that her daughter's injuries were serious, especially since the police officers would not permit her to approach Stacey's body. Even though Mrs. Ruttley did not actually see Stacey's body, Mrs. Ruttley did see the canvas that she knew covered her deceased daughter's body. Furthermore, she observed the removal of Stacey's body from the vehicle. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Mrs. Ruttley bystander damages.
The record reflects that Ms. Bolotte arrived at the scene after Stacey's body had been removed from the car and that she was informed by others that her sister had passed away in the accident. While she did see Stacey's blood in the car, she did not view Stacey's body, nor did she ascertain the seriousness of the accident from the events transpiring at the scene. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did abuse its discretion in awarding bystander damages to Ms. Bolotte and we reverse this award.
SPECIFICATION OF ERROR 6: WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFITS.
Jefferson Parish argues that the trial court erred in awarding Mrs. Ruttley $300,000 in wrongful death benefits. Mrs. Ruttley responds that the trial court appropriately awarded her $300,000 in wrongful death benefits because they were a close family and her loss is great.
The record reflects that Stacey was an exemplary young woman who was loved and admired by her mother and siblings. The loss of life of a family member is always difficult to assess in terms of a monetary award. However, a monetary judgment is the only redress that the courts can award in this unfortunate incident. Given the evidence, we find that an award of $300.000 for wrongful death damages to Mrs. Ruttley is appropriate.
The standard for appellate review of general damage awards, as stated in Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d at 1261 (La.1993) is "difficult to express and is necessarily non-specific, and the requirement of an articulated basis
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|