 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Delco v. Stafford2/20/2002
Kuhn, J., concurring
This appeal arises following a judgment notwithstanding the verdict increasing plaintiff's award for general damages and future lost wages.
FACTS
This litigation stems from a collision between two semi tractor trailer rigs on November 14, 1998 in Assumption Parish. As the rigs passed each other on the two-lane Louisiana Highway 662, defendant Eugene Stafford poached slightly into plaintiff's lane.
Plaintiff Joseph Lee Delco, Jr. filed suit against Mr. Stafford, his employer, Tycoon Trucking, Inc., and its insurer, Clarendon National Insurance Company, for injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. After a trial, a jury allocated 100 percent fault to defendant Stafford and awarded damages:
General damages $3,000.00
Past medical expenses 26,716.46
Future medical expenses 0
Past lost wages 40,000.00
Future lost wages 57,000.00
for a total of $126,716.46.
Plaintiff subsequently moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing that the damage awards were inadequate. The trial court granted the motion and increased plaintiff's general damage award to $125,000.00 and the award for future lost wages to $150,000.00.
Defendants now appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's JNOV by 1) wei ghing the evidence and evaluating witnesses' credibility and 2) increasing damage awards that were logical and consistent with the evidence.
LAW AND ARGUMENT
LSA-C.C.P. art. 1811 is the authority for a JNOV. In Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-0445 (La. 11/28/00), 774 So.2d 84, 89 the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the standard to be used in determining whether a JNOV has been properly granted:
A JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The motion should be granted only when the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach different conclusions, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. If there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. In making this determination, the court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. (Emphasis ours.)
In general, the standard of review for a JNOV is twofold. First, we must determine that the jury verdict was not supported by competent evidence and was wholly unreasonable. To make this determination, we must find that all of the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the party benefiting from the JNOV, points so strongly and overwhelmingly in his favor that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict on the issue. Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 774 So.2d at 89. Only if we find that the trial judge properly granted the JNOV will we move forward to the second prong and review the JNOV using the manifest error standard. Id.
Plaintiff testified that only his knee hurt immediately after the accident, but later that night, he went to Terrebonne General Medical Center " or back and neck injury ." Later, on cross examination, plaintiff testified, "Well, I told [hospital staff] my back and neck was (sic) bothering me, but mainly I had headaches."
The police report and photogr
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|