Robinson v. General Motors Corporation
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., November 12, 1979 378 So. 2d 134; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 19, 1967 205 So. 2d 628; La., May 15, 1879 31 La. 582
Robinson v. General Motors Corporation, 328 So. 2d 751 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976).
Cited by
- Cattles v. Allstate Insurance Co. 45 So. 3d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
- Wainwright v. Fontenot 774 So. 2d 70 La. 2000
- Bachemin v. Anderson 717 So. 2d 677 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
- Langlinais v. Figueroa 636 So. 2d 983 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
- Richard v. Dollar General Store 606 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
- Boulmay v. Dubois 593 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
- Martin v. Hertz Corp. 533 So. 2d 1365 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
- Irving v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 517 So. 2d 868 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
- Labauve v. Central Mut. Ins. Co. 491 So. 2d 146 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
- Evans v. Newton 459 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
- Curry on Behalf of Curry v. Allstate Ins. Co. 435 So. 2d 1030 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
- Odendahl v. Wild 418 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Bitoun v. Landry 302 So. 2d 278
Opinion text
328 So.2d 751 (1976) Sandra P. ROBINSON et al. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al. No. 7192. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. March 16, 1976. Benjamin J. Birdsall, Jr., Birdsall, Alverez & Rodriguez, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellants. Gordon F. Wilson, Jr., Dodge, Friend, Wilson & Spedale, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees Shirley H. Bordelon and St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Peter L. Bernard, Jr., Jerry L. Saporito, Bernard, Micholet & Cassisa, Metairie, for defendant-appellee General Motors Corp. Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and SCHOTT, JJ. REDMANN, Judge. A jury answering "interrogatories" "award[ed]" to each of three personal injury plaintiffs the exact amount of medical expenses and, for one plaintiff, lost wages, but for each plaintiff awarded "none" as damages for pain and suffering. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment against their host driver and her insurer for the amount of those "awards", seeking increase in quantum. Juries have "much discretion", C.C. 1934(3), in assessing non-pecuniary damages. "The question", states Bitoun v. Landry, La.1974, 302 So.2d 278, 279 , "is not whether a different award might have been more appropriate, but whether the award of the trial court can be reasonably supported by the evidence and justifiable inferences from the evidence before it." The inferences which the jury may have made in this caseand it is not our function to agree or disagree, but only to decide their reasonable supportabilityinclude that all testimony of pain and suffering *752 was exaggerated (e.g., blood "gushing" from one plaintiff's bleeding nose, compared to the doctor's description of a "tiny laceration"), and that, for one plaintiff, actual hospitalization for 12 days (at least in part, because of a pre-existing and unaffected heart condition) and loss of wages for six weeks, and, for all plaintiffs, additional medical examinations and treatment for neck and back pains three and a half months after the accident (when all three went to the same doctor at the same time) could not fairly be attributed to the accident. Perhaps the jury felt that by awarding the full amount of medical expenses and lost wages, including those not due to the accidenta total of $1,592 for Mrs. Pasqua, $224 for Mrs. Morrissey and $173 for the mother of nine-year-old Robinsonit was sufficiently compensating for both legitimate pecuniary losses and for pain and suffering as well. Perhaps those same amounts in a general verdict could pass muster as within the jury's much discretion, on the theory that, in effect, the jury refused much of the medical expenses and lost wages as uncaused by the accident, and included general damages of about $1,000 to Mrs. Pasqua and about $100 each to Mrs. Morrissey and young Robinson. But we do not have a general verdict, and an award of "none" as damages for pain and suffering is not an exercise of discretion as to amount but a refusal of an award. If a jury deems missing work or incurring certain medical expenses unjustified, it may disallow those items, but it may not refuse general damages to plaintiffs with objective injuries. Mrs. Pasqua had a broken nose and bruised chest, Mrs. Morrissey a bruised leg and lower ribs with costal condyle separation, and young Robinson a visible bump on the head, and should receive some reparation for those general damages. There is, however, no complaint of any erroneous instruction of the jury or any other impropriety which would suggest we disregard altogether the jury's discounting of plaintiffs' injuries. We therefore fix general damage awards towards the lower limits of the much discretion C.C. 1934(3) grants. The judgment is amended to increase the award to Mrs. Pasqua by $1,000, that to Mrs. Morrissey by $750, and that to Mrs. Robinson by $100 for her child.