Bryan Arnold Richman, Jr. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Et Al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 01, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
BRYAN ARNOLD RICHMAN, JR.
VS.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET
AL.
No. 2022-C-01059
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Shannon T. Rhodus - Applicant Defendant; Climax Portable Machine Tools,
Inc. - Applicant Defendant; The Travelers Indemnity Company - Applicant
Defendant; Applying Fo r Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial
District Court Number(s) 2017-1756, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) 21-
459;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 01, 2022
Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.
Hughes, J., dissents.
Crichton, J., would grant and docket.
PDG
JLW
JTG
WJC
JBM
11/01/2022 "See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2022-C-01059
BRYAN ARNOLD RICHMAN, JR.
VS.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu
PER CURIAM
Writ granted in part. The trial court erred in granting plaintiff’ s judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) and awarding an additional $250,000.00 in
past non-economic damages and $100,000.00 in loss of enjoyment of life. As a
“general proposition,” a disparity between a jury’s award of special and general
damages “may be illogical or inconsistent.” See Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492,
p. 8 (La. 10/17/00), 774 So.2d 70, 76 (emphasis added) . However, “a jury, in the
exercise of its discretion as factfinder, can reasonably reach the conclusion that a
plaintiff has proven his entitlements to recovery of certain medical costs, yet failed
to prove that he endured compensable pain and suffering as a result of defendant’s
fault.” Id.; Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc. , 00-0628, p. 5 (La. 10/30/00), 772
So.2d 94, 99 (the rigorous JNOV standard is based on the principle that when there
is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact). We find the facts and inferences are not so
overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiff t hat a reasonable jury could not have
awarded $50,000.00 in past non-economic damages. See Joseph, 00-0628, pp. 4-5,
772 So.3d at 99. Accordingly, the lower courts are reversed in part and the jury’s
award of $50,000.00 in past non -economic damages is reinstated. In all other
respects, the writ is denied.
REVERSED IN PART; JURY AWARD REINSTATED
11/01/22