Cd, Individually And On Behalf Of The Minor, Sd v. Sc, Individually And As The Parent And Guardian Of Dj, Rock Solid Camps, Llc And State Of Louisiana, Department Of Health And Hospitals, In Solido (Parish of Caddo) Reversed And Vacated In Part; Tria

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #032
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 27th day of June, 2023 are as follows:
BY McCallum, J.:
2022-C-00961 CD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR, SD VS. SC,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF DJ,
ROCK SOLID CAMPS, LLC AND STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, IN SOLIDO (Parish of
Caddo)
REVERSED AND VACATED IN PART; TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT
REINSTATED; AFFIRMED IN PART; AND REMANDED. SEE
OPINION.
Retired Judge James Boddie appointed Justice ad hoc, sitting for Crichton, J.,
recused in case number 2022-C-00961 only.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Hughes, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Weimer, C.J.
McCallum, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-C-00961
CD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR, SD
VS.
SC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF DJ,
ROCK SOLID CAMPS, LLC AND STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, IN SOLIDO
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo
MCCALLUM, J.*
We granted certiorari in this matter to consider whether the court of appeal
erred by reducing the general damages awarded to SD, the minor victim of a sexual
assault.1 After reviewing the record, we find the jury did not abuse its discretion in
assessing the amount of general damages, and the court of appeal erred in holding
otherwise. For the following reasons, we reverse and vacate the court of appeal ’s
judgment, in part, and reinstate the trial court’s award of general damages in accord
with jury’s verdict. In all other respects, the court of appeal’s judgment is affirmed,
and the matter is remanded.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the summer of 2010, SD and DJ attended the Rock Solid C amp, a
Shreveport day camp providing sport s and other activiti es to children of varying
ages. SD was a n eight-year-old special education student with a mild case of
Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (“CdLS”).2 At that time, fourteen-year-old DJ was on
* Retired Judge James H. Boddie Jr., appointed justice ad hoc, sitting for Justice Scott J. Crichton,
recused.
1 Supreme Court Rule XXXII, § 3 provides: “The identity of all minor children subject to any and
all proceedings in this court, whether civil, criminal or otherwise, shall remain confidential in all
briefs filed and all opinions rendered.” Accordingly, we have used the initials of the minor children
involved in this matter to protect their identity.
2 Cornelia de Lange syndrome is a genetic abnormality characterized by numerous physical ,
intellectual and behavioral differences. Children with CdLS usually ha ve low birth weight, are

2

probation for aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen in Texas
and had been accused of a sexual assault in March 2010 at Northwest Regional
Mental Health Center, where he had been receiving counseling. As a juvenile on
probation, DJ was eligible for State-provided services. DJ’s case coordinator at the
Shreveport region Office of Behavioral Health (“OBH”), an arm of t he State of
Louisiana, Department of Health and Hospitals (“DHH”), approved the funding for
DJ to attend Rock Solid Camp, and the State of Louisiana paid his camp tuition.
On July 26, 2010, Jared Green, a camp counselor, gave SD permission to use
the men’s restroom. When SD took longer than expected to return, Mr. Green went
into the restroom and discovered SD and DJ in a shower stall pulling up their pants.
Camp officials reported the incident to the Shreveport Police Department , which
conducted an investigation.
SD was examined by a hospital sexual assault nurse examiner, but no physical
injuries were noted . SD gave a taped video statement at the Gingerbread House
indicating that DJ anally raped him.3 DJ was arrested for aggravated rape and
adjudicated delinquent. He was given a disposition of secure custody until reaching
the age of 21, otherwise known as juvenile life.
CD, individually and as tutor of his minor son SD, filed a petition for damages,
naming as defendants, SC, the mother of DJ; Rock Solid Camps, LLC; and the State
of Louisiana, through DHH.4 At the conclusion of a four-day trial, the jury returned
a verdict in favor of SD and found all defendants liable. It allocated fault as follows:
65 percent to the State, 30 percent to Rock Solid Camps, LLC, and 5 percent to SC

smaller in size and height, and have a smaller head circumference (microencephaly). Most also
experience developmental delays that range from mild to profound learning disabilities.
https://www.chop.edu

3 The Gingerbread House is a facility in Shreveport where victims of sexual assault under the age
of 16 are taken to give a taped interview.

4 The record includes a certified document from the clerk of court for the Twenty-Sixth Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Bossier indicating that CD had been duly appointed and confirmed
as tutor of his minor child, SD, and had taken the oath as the law requires.

3

(DJ’s mother), and assessed general damages in the amount of $1,250,000. In accord
with the jury’s verdict, the trial court rendered a judgment against the defendants as
follows: the State of Louisiana, DHH, in the amount of $812,500 (subject to the
statutory cap of $500,000, as set forth in La. R.S. 13:5106, together with judicial
interest as set forth in La. R.S. 13:5112); Rock Solid Camps, LLC, in the amount of
$375,000; and, SC, individually and as the parent and guardian of DJ, in the amount
of $62,500, with the latter two awards subject to judicial interest from the date of
judicial demand. The State appealed.
A five-judge panel of the court of appeal affirmed the trial court judgment, in
part, on liability and the allocation of fault. As to the general damages, three judges
amended the judgment, in part, to reduce the award from $1,250,000 to $250,000 ,
while two judges dissented, finding no abuse of the jury’s discretion in assessing the
amount. CD v. SC , 54,158, p. 44 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/20/22), 339 So. 3d 88, 109
(Pitman, J. and Stone, J., dissenting). On the application of CD, individually and on
behalf of SD, we granted certiorari. CD v. SC , 22-00961, p. 1 (La. 11/ 8/22), 349
So.3d 569, 570.
DISCUSSION
The sole issue before this Court is whether the court of appeal erred in
reducing the award of general damages . CD argues the jury did not abuse its
discretion, as the evidence presented at trial provided the jury with a reasonable
factual basis for the award. The State counters that the court of appeal properly
reduced the general damages as there was no medical evidence of physical injury,
the testimony from both mental health professionals established that there were
concurrent and subsequent causes for SD’s damages, and SD’s congenital condition
has affected his behavior before and after the incident at Rock Solid Camp.
General damages are tho se which are inherently speculative and cannot be
fixed with mathematical certainty. Bouquet v. Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. , 08-309, p. 4

4

(La. 4/4/08), 979 So. 2d 456, 458 . “[T]hey involve mental or physical pain or
suffering, inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification or physical enjoyment,
or other losses of life or life-style which cannot be definitely measured in monetary
terms.” Jones v. Mkt. Basket Stores, Inc. , 22-841, p. 15 ( La. 3/17/23), 359 So. 3d
452, 464, citing Duncan v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 00-0066, p. 13 (La.
10/30/00), 773 So. 2d 670, 682 . Vast discretion is accorded to the trier of fact in
fixing general damage awards. Jones, 22-841, p. 15, 359 So. 3d at 464; La. C.C. art.
2324.1 (“In the assessment of damages in cases of offenses, quasi offenses, and quasi
contracts, much discretion must be left to the judge or jury.”) . The trier of fact is
afforded much discretion in assessing the facts and rendering an award because it is
in the best position to evaluate witness credibility and see the evidence firsthand.
Duncan, 00–0066, p. 13, 773 So.2d at 682.5
The standard of review applicable to a general damages award is the abuse of
discretion standard. Bouquet, 08 -309, p. 4, 979 So. 2d at 459 ; Coco v. Winston
Indus., Inc., 341 So.2d 332, 335 (La.1976). The role of the appellate court in
reviewing general damage awards is not to decide what it consi ders to be an
appropriate award but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact.
Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750, p. 5 (La. 10/19/10), 50 So. 3d 1251, 125-

5 We hold juries in high regard and accord them great deference in their decisions. In our justice
system, juries bear an important responsibility . “ Citizen participation in the disposition of civil
cases has been an important, indeed central, and perhaps critical, element in the developmen t of
the American legal system. . . . The system has served many purposes, but its enduring purpose
has been to secure a greater measure of trust in judicial institutions.” Paul D. Carrington, The Civil
Jury and American Democracy , 2003 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law Vol.
13:79, pp 79-94. This is one reason juries should be given much deference in their decisions. As
this Court has previously noted, “[w] e give great deference to the trial court because it observes
and participates in the live presentat ion, while the appella te court merely reviews the cold
transcript.” Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr -McGee Rocky
Mountain, LLC, 14-2592, p. 10 (La. 12/8/15); 193 So.3d 1110, 1116-17.

Confidence in juries, and their ability to handle and decide difficult, factual questions, is reflected
in the legislature’s recent amendment to reduce the threshold amount for a jury trial. Effective
January 1, 2021, the Legislature amended La. C.C.P. art. 1732, lowering the threshold amount to
ten thousand dollars for trials by jury. See 2020 La. Sess. Law Serv. 1st Ex. See. Act 37 (H.B.
57)(WEST); La. C.C.P. art. 1732 (2021).

5

56; Youn v. Mar itime Overseas Corp., 623 So. 2d 1257, 126 1 (La. 1993) , cert.
denied, 510 U.S. 1114, 114 S.Ct. 1059, 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). The initial inquiry
in reviewing an award of general damages is whether the trier of fact abused its
discretion in assessing the amount of damages for the particular injuries and their
effects upon this particular injured person . Howard, 50 So.3d at 1256; Reck v.
Stevens, 373 So. 2d 498, 504-05 (La. 1979). Thus, the question is whether the award
of the trial court can be reasonably supported by the evidence and justifiable
inferences from the evidence before it. Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc. , 341 So. 2d at
334.
We now examine the evidence in the record. CD testified that he is a single
father with three sons, twins SD and AD, and their older brother, BD. CD’s former
spouse, the boys’ mother, abandoned the family when BD was three years old and
the twins were ten months, and they have had no contact with her since then. Both
twins were born with the genetic abnormality CdLS and are in special education at
school. SD’s grades range from B to F and his twin brother’s range from A to D.
CD also testified about a subsequent assault on SD, which occurred in the
family home. At the time, CD was married to a woman with a son approximately
four years older than SD. Less than a year after the Rock Solid Camp incident, SD’s
stepbrother asked SD (then 9 years old) to touch his gen itals and SD told him no.
After CD reported the incident to the police, his wife and her son left the home. The
couple have since divorced.
According to CD, SD has not been the same since the incident at Rock Solid
Camp and, as a result, he spends twice as much time caring for SD than his two other
sons. After the sexual assault at camp, SD began to struggle with anger and “has a
lot more negativity.” SD would “lash out” by yelling and throwing things at home
and school. At the suggestion of a psychologist, SD now takes karate lessons, which
he enjoys. SD’s participation in karate along with his prescription medicines have

6

helped somewhat with SD’s anger and negativity. SD has been in counseling since
the July 2010 incident, and the treatment he receives at the Gingerbread House has
assisted with his recovery. CD testified that he will have to take care of SD in the
future even though SD would soon reach the age of majority.
The jury heard the testimony of Bonnie Howell, a licensed professional
counselor at the Gingerbread House who treated SD after the sexual assault for five
years. Ms. Howell testified that s he did “play therapy” with SD and his play was
serious, which indicated that he had been traumatized. She testified that SD’s play
also centered on SD trying to figure out how to obtain power. She characterized SD
as angry, frustrated, and having “a lot of rage.” During their second therapy session,
SD told Ms. Howell that he wanted to “deal with” what DJ did to him and that he
wanted to feel better about himself because he “felt bad.” In describing the incident,
SD told her, “I was so sad and scared. I did not know what was happening.” Ms.
Howell explained that the sexual assault was “very upsetting and traumatizing” and
changed SD’s life forever. SD was afraid, nervous, and anxious. She believed SD
has suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the sexual assault at camp ,
even though it has never been medically diagnosed. Ms. Howell also explained that
the stepbrother incident “re-traumatized” SD.
The jury also heard from Dr. Bruce McCormick , who testified that he and
therapist Mark Nettles have been treating SD since November 2015. According to
Dr. McCormick, CdLS would make SD more vulnerable and more likely to be a
victim of an attack. He explained that SD’s problems “could have” been brought
about or exacerbated by molestation “to some extent.” Dr. McCormick testified that
bullying at school could have caused some of SD’s emotional problems and the step-
brother incident could have had an effect on SD as well. While molestation can cause
lasting effects on its victims, Dr. McCormick explained its effects are wide and
varied, and include social distrust, difficulty functioning with other children and in

7

school, an unusual level of fear , behavioral problems, and vulnerability for mental
health disorders as an adult. Although Dr. McCormick observed an improvement in
SD’s emotional and behavioral issues due to the prescribed medicines, he said SD
continued to struggle with mental health problems as of the date of trial.
It is well-settled law that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him. Reck v.
Stevens, 373 So.2d at 502 . Here, SD was an eight -year-old child with a genetic
abnormality that made him especially vulnerable and exacerbated the negative
effects of the rape . CD explained how the rape had profound ly changed and
adversely affected his son’s life and well-being. The counselor and mental health
professional acknowledged the rape was traumatizing for SD, and resulted in fear,
anger, rage, anxiety and nervousness. The rape has had a significant impact on SD’s
ability to trust and interact with others . SD continues to suffer the long term
emotional and mental effects of the rape to this day. As Judge Pitman aptly
acknowledged in her dissent , and Judge Stone agreed, an appellate court is not to
decide what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise
of discretion by the trier of fact. CD v. SC, 54-158, 339 So. 3d at 110 (Pitman, J.,
dissenting). Based on our review of the evidence, we find the court of appeal erred
by substituting its own judgment for that of the jury when it reduced the amount of
general damages due SD. We hold the jury did not abuse its broad discretion in
awarding general damages of $1,250,000 and reinstate the trial court’s award in
accord with the jury verdict.
As a final matter, we note t he record reflects that SD attained the age of
majority between the date the jury returned its verdict and the date the trial court
rendered and signed the written judgment. While SD’s father, CD, had the authority
pursuant to La. C.C. art. 683 to file the petition on behalf of SD, the record does not
reflect that the proper party plaintiff was substituted after SD reached the age of

8

majority.6 Nor does the record reflect that CD filed a petition for continuing or
permanent tutorship under La. C.C. art. 354 et seq.7 Therefore, we remand the case
to the trial court to determine whether the judgment must be recast in light of SD’s
reaching the age of majority.
DECREE
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the court of appeal ’s judgment is
reversed and vacated , in par t, and the trial court’s award of general damages is
reinstated. In all other respects, the court of appeal’s judgment is affirmed and the
matter is remanded to the trial court consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND VACATED IN PART ; TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT
REINSTATED; AFFIRMED IN PART; AND REMANDED

6 See Succession of Triola, 17-301, p. 12 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/17); 236 So .3d 792, 801 (“The
tutorship of a minor normally ends but in one way - the attainment of majority.”).

7 Louisiana C.C. art. 354 et seq. provide for continuing or permanent tutorship of person s with
intellectual disabilities.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-C-00961
CD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR, SD
VS.
SC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF DJ,
ROCK SOLID CAMPS, LLC AND STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, IN SOLIDO
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo
WEIMER, C.J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
As the majority recognizes, general damage awards are inherently speculative
as they require monetizing considerations (such as mental or physical pain or
suffering, inconvenience, and loss of intellectual gratification or physical enjoyment)
that are not easily susceptible to measurement in terms of dollars and cents. See,
Duncan v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 00-66, p. 13 (La. 10/30/00), 773 So.2d 670, 682.
For that reason, and because the trier of fact has a firsthand view of the testimony
and evidence and is in the best position to evaluate witness credibility, the trier of fact
is accorded “much discretion” in fixing damages. Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498,
501 (La. 1979). While that discretion is “‘great,’ and even vast,” it is not unfettered.
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La. 1993). An award of
general damages must be tethered to the particular injuries and their effects under the
particular circumstances on the particular injured person. Id.
In this instance, the court of appeal applied the appropriate standard of
appellate review of general damage awards and articulated, cogently, its reasons for
concluding that the award of $1.25 million in general damages is beyond that which

a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effects of the particular injury to the
particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances. CD v. SC., 54,158, pp. 39-41
(La.App. 2 Cir. 4/20/22), 339 So.3d 88, 107-08. In reaching its conclusion, the court
acknowledged the significant mental trauma suffered by SD; however, it also
considered the lack of physical injury, the circumstances operating in SD’s life
independent of the incident at Rock Solid that contributed to his mental distress and
his need for therapy, and the fact that SD had demonstrated important markers of
recovery and, at his last examination by his treating physician, appeared to be doing
well. Id. I agree with the court of appeal’s assessment that given the totality of
evidence regarding the particular injuries to this particular plaintiff under the
particular circumstances of this case, the award of $1.25 million is beyond that which
a reasonable trier of fact could assess. The facts of this case are tragic and rightly
invoke outrage and indignation; however, the general damage award here–given the
particular facts and the evidence–appears more punitive than compensatory and, thus,
I find it was an abuse of the jury’s great discretion.
Where I depart from the court of appeal is with the conclusion that $250,000
is the highest award for general damages reasonably within the jury’s discretion.
While previous reported cases involving similar facts can certainly serve as
guideposts in assessing general damages once an abuse of discretion is found, no two
cases are ever fully alike. Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332, 335
(La. 1976). Indeed, as the court cautioned in Coco:
whether two cases are so similar as to produce like quantum judgments
is hardly discernible by gleaning the facts of the comparable decision
from simply a written opinion of an appellate tribunal. ... Furthermore,
it is impossible for an appellate court to judge what evidence in a
particular case was given special weight by the trier of fact.
Id. at 335-36.
2

Strict reliance on general damage awards in cases which come “close to” the
circumstances under consideration, but which involve readily distinguishable facts
and circumstances (such as the court of appeal demonstrated in its assessment of
damages in this case) does not further the goal of fair compensation. In this instance,
taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of this case in light of their
effect on this particular plaintiff, I would find an award in a range well-above that of
the court of appeal, but below the $1.25 million awarded by the jury as adequate
compensation for the injuries suffered by SD.
3

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-C-00961
CD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINOR, SD
VS.
SC, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF DJ,
ROCK SOLID CAMPS, LLC AND STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS, IN SOLIDO
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo
MCCALLUM, J., additionally concurs with reasons.
The inability of the various members of the court of appeal , and then this
Court, to agree on the amount of the award to SD further supports that deference
should be given to the jury who heard and evaluated the evidence firsthand.