Ashlyn Franks, Individually And On Behalf Of Her

1
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #046
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
T
he Opinions handed down on the 21st day of October, 2022 are as follows:
B
Y Griffin, J.:
2022-C-00178 ASHLYN FRANKS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER
MINOR CHILD, ADDISON FRANKS VS. JOSHUA SIKES AND
LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL I NSURANCE COMPANY
(Parish of Tensas)
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT AMENDED. SEE OPINION.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2022-C-00178

ASHLYN FRANKS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR
CHILD, ADDISON FRANKS

VS.

JOSHUA SIKES AND LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit,
Parish of Tensas

GRIFFIN, J.

We granted this writ to address the propriety of a general d amages award of
$5,000.00 to a two year-old child who su ffered facial injuries from a do g bite .
Finding the award constitutes an abuse of discretion , we increase t he amount of
general damages to $50,000.00.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ashlyn Franks visited Joshua Sikes at his grandfather’s property in Tensas
Parish. Ms. Franks was accompanied by her then two year-old daughter, Addison.
Two hours after their arrival, Mr. Sikes’ dog bit Addison causing severe injury to
her upper left lip. Ms. Franks, individually and on behalf of Addison, filed a petition
for damages against Mr. Sikes and the property’s insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau
Mutual Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”). The trial court found Mr. Sikes had
no liability. Ms. Franks appealed. The court of appeal reversed on the issue of
liability and awarded $2,461.09 in stipulated past medical expenses, $10,500.00 in
future medical expenses, and $5,000 in general damages observing that Addison’s
pain and functional difficulties largely resolved seven months after the attack .
Franks v. Sikes, 54,177, pp. 11-13 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/23/21), 331 So.3d 1107, 1114.

2

Ms. Franks’ writ application to this Court followed, which we granted. 1
Franks v. Sikes, 22-0178 (La. 04/20/22), 336 So. 3d 457.
DISCUSSION
The narrow issue presented is whether the court of appeal abused its discretion
in awarding $5,000.00 in general damages under the specific facts and circumstances
of this case. General damages are, by their nature, speculative, cannot be calculated
with mathematical certainty, and include items such as pain and suffering (physical
and mental), loss of enjoyment of life, and physical impairment and dis ability.
McGee v. A C & S, Inc ., 05-1036, pp. 3 -5 (La. 7/10/06), 933 So.2d 770, 774 -75.
When reviewing a general damages award, the “initial inquiry is whether the award
for the particular injuries and their effects under the particular circumstances on the
particular injured person is a clear abuse of the ‘much discretion’ of the trier of fact.”
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp ., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260 (La . 1993). Only after
such a determination is a resort to prior awards appropriate and then for the purpose
of determining the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion.
Id. (citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332, 333-34 (La. 1976)). We
apply the above standard where, as here, the court of appeal acts as the finder of fact.
See Thibodeaux v. Donnell , 17-0909, pp. 1-2 (La. 10/27/17), 227 S o.3d 812, 813 ;
LeBlanc v. Stevenson , 00-0157, p p. 6 -7 (La. 10/17/00), 770 So.2d 766, 772 -73
(finding amount of general damages “was reasonably awarded by the court of appeal
to this plaintiff in these circumstances”).
Ms. Franks argues the award of $5,000.00 in general damages is abusively
low. Farm Bureau counters that because Addison’s functional difficulties resolved
in short order and additional future procedures may prove unnecessary, the court of
appeal did not abuse its great discretion. We disagree.

1 We denied Farm Bureau’s writ application challenging the issue of liability. Franks v. Sikes,
22-0237 (La. 04/20/22), 336 So.3d 461.

3

A detailed review of the record reveals evidence of severe damage to
Addison’s upper left lip, pain and suffering associated with the injury and her initial
surgery, nerve damage that will require future surgery to correct a disfigurement,
and the potential for other surgeries to minimize residual scarring . Ms. Franks
testified that immediately after being bitten, Addison ’s face was bleeding so
profusely it was difficult to tell where the blood was coming from. Ms. Franks
further testified that Addison was “hysterical” and the ride to the hospital in the
ambulance took almost two hours. Part of Addison’s lip was hanging off of her face.
Photographs in the record document her gruesome condition prior to surgery .
Although the hospital immediately determined surgery was required, Addison could
not be operat ed on until the next morning having recently eaten. Ms. Franks
described Addison’s night in the hospital as “awful” as she was throwing herself
back and forth given allergic reactions to pain medication.
Dr. Herbert Maguire performed the initial surgery wherein necrotic tissue was
debrided and the incision wounds made by the dog bite were sutured. After being
discharged, Addison was limited to soft foods and no physical activity for
approximately two weeks. A series of follow -up visits with Dr. Maguire revealed
most of Addison’s pain and functional ity issues resolved within several months.
However, the surgery performed by Dr. Maguire was not reconstructive in nature
and he noted future surgery would be required. Dr. Clyde Smoot gave a similar
assessment but advised Ms. Franks to wait a year after the injury to see if the scar
tissue would soften with time. In the interim Addison had a bump on her upper left
lip that drooped and would not move with the rest of her lip when she talked. Ms.
Franks test ified that other children would tease Addison and even adults would
remark on her appearance. A ddison displayed a fear of dogs and would run inside
whenever she saw one.

4

A year and a half later, Addison was evaluated by Dr. Darrell Henderson who
also opined that Addison required additional surgery.2 Specifically, Dr. Henderson
explained the bump and droop in Addison’s upper left lip was caused by nonreactive
muscle tissue due to a loss of nerve and blood supply. He considered Addison’s lip
to be “mar kedly disfigured.” Dr. Henderson further stated reconstructive surgery
would involve excising the dead muscle tissue which would be significantly invasive
and may result in temporary interference with speech. Restrictions on food intake
and physical acti vity, similar to those of the initial surgery, would be in place for
approximately one month. The reconstructive surgery would leave be hind a scar
between Addison’s lip and nose which Dr. Henderson acknowledged might be
disguised with makeup. However, Dr. Henderson noted Addison would have to be
reevaluated around age fifteen as there is a fifty-five percent chance the scar would
become rough and irregular. Additional revision and dermabrasion treatments may
be necessary if the scar is more pronounced than Addison would like but, ultimately,
Dr. Henderson stated that Addison’s lip could never be restored to its original
appearance. In light of the above, we find the award of $5,000.00 in general damages
to be abusively low.
Having found the court of app eal abused its discretion, we examine
comparable awards in similar cases to determine the lowest amount that could have
been reasonably awarded here. See Thibodeaux, supra; Coco, supra. Prior awards
are only a guide and, in reviewing the facts, “the test is whether the present award is
greatly disproportionate to the mass of past awards for truly similar injuries. ”

2 Farm Bureau argues that this delay and Ms. Franks’ failure to proceed with the reconstructive
surgery constitutes a failure to mitigate damages. It points to deposition testimony by Dr.
Henderson where he states it is ideal to have such surgeries within three to four months of the
injury. However, Dr. Henderson also stated a delay of a few years would make no appreciable
difference until Addison approaches her late teens and her growth slows. We also note that when
asked during trial whether she intends to have this reconstructive surgery performed, Ms. Franks
testified “absolutely.” She attributed the delay to the fact she was pregnant at the time of the initial
injury and wanted her other daughter to reach an age where she could appreciate she could not
play rough or inadvertently hit Addison’s lip during recovery from the reconstructive surgery.

5

Bouquet v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 08-0309, p. 5 (La. 4/4/08), 979 So.2d 459. We
find two cases most relevant to this analysis.
In McWard v. Independent Fire Ins. Co. , a four year -old was awarded
$38,000.00 in general damages for a severe dog bite to his face. 482 So.2d 984, 985
(La.App. 3d Cir. 1986) . Similar to Addison, the child therein required immediate
triage surgery, additional surgery for scar revision, was subject to teasing from other
children, and became fearful of dogs . Id., 482 So.2d at 985 -86. The Third Circuit
affirmed the award in consideration of “the residual scarring and the necessity of
continued treatment, as well as the traumatic effect to a small child of a dog bite to
the face.” Id., 482 So.2d at 986. Although we recognize the injury in McWard was
of greater severity, it did not affect any muscle function. Id., 482 So.2d at 985.
In the more recent case of McBride v. Lichtenstein, the Fourth Circuit affirmed
an award of $50,000.00 for a forehead scar resulting from injuries sustained by an
eighteen year-old woman in a motor vehicle accident. 17-0715, p. 22 (La.App. 4
Cir. 12/5/18), 260 So.3d 658, 673; see also Green v. Spriggs, 05-1105, p. 7 (La.App.
3 Cir. 4/26/06), 930 So2d 1052, 1056 (defining disfigurement as “that which impairs
or injures the beauty, symmetry, or appearance of a person or thing; that which
renders unsi ghtly, misshapen, or imperfect, or deforms in some manner”). This
amount was in addition to $32,000.00 for pain and suffering and $50,000.00 for loss
of enjoyment of life. Id. The Fourth Circuit cited plaintiff’s testimony regarding the
impact of the scar on her self-esteem as supporting the award for loss of enjoyment
of life. Id., 17-0715, p. 25, 260 So.3d at 675.
Using the above cases as a guide, we find the lowest amount that could have
been reasonably awarded is $50 ,000.00. See, Coco, supra. This amount
encompasses pain and suffering, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life . It is
clear from the record that Addison, only two years -old at the time, underwent a
traumatic experience being bitten in the face by a dog with such force as to in flict

6

nerve and muscle damage to her lip. Immediately after the attack, she was
“hysterical” and suffered through an “awful” night at the hospital. Although issues
of pain and functionality abated, she must undergo additional surgery to correct a
marked disfigurement in her lip and will always have a residual amount of scarring.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we find the court of appeal abused its discretion in
its award of $5,000.00 in general damages. Accordingly, we increase that award to
$50,000.00.

COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT AMENDED