Sallinger v. Robichaux
Sallinger v. Robichaux, 775 So. 2d 437 (La. 2001).
Cited by
- Christopher L. Clement, Sr. and Sherry H. Clement v. State of Louisiana Through the … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
- Davis v. Vosbein 119 So. 3d 100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
- Brandi Broussard v. Michelle Fredericks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
- Broussard v. Fredericks 889 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
- Green v. K-Mart Corp. 874 So. 2d 838 La. 2004
- Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 796 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
- Griffin v. Louisiana Sheriff's Auto Risk 802 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Wainwright v. Fontenot 774 So. 2d 70
- Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 341 So. 2d 332
Opinion text
775 So.2d 437 (2001) Michael SALLINGER v. Glenn ROBICHAUX, d/b/a Robichaux Quick Stop, et al. No. 00-C-2269. Supreme Court of Louisiana. January 5, 2001. PER CURIAM. Granted in part, otherwise denied. The Court of Appeal concluded that it was legal error for the jury to award the plaintiff special damages for medical expenses yet decline to make any award for general damages. Because it had found legal error, the Court of Appeal then conducted a de novo review of the record and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to general damages of $65,000.00. This de novo review by the Court of Appeal was improper. Our recent decision in Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So.2d 70 (La.2000), makes it clear that it is not necessarily legal error for a jury to award medical expenses without awarding general damages for pain and suffering. Rather, a Court of Appeal faced with such a verdict must review the jury's factual findings as to damages under the normal manifest error standard. Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976). Because the Court of Appeal conducted its review of damages de novo rather than under the proper abuse of discretion standard, we vacate the award of $65,000.00 in general damages and remand the case to the Court of Appeal. In so doing, we make no comment as to the jury's determination of damages. We rather direct the court below to review the jury's verdict under the appropriate abuse of discretion standard as dictated by Wainwright . Accordingly, the Court of Appeal's award of damages is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeal for it to review the jury's verdict under an abuse of discretion standard.