Jeffrey Meche v. John Melvin Duhon

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

05-423

JEFFREY MECHE AND PATRICIA MECHE

VERSUS

JOHN MELVIN DUHON

************
APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 2000-0705,
HONORABLE HERMAN CLAUSE, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Glenn B. Gremillion, J. David Painter, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Peter C. Piccione, Jr.
P.O. Box 5150
Lafayette, LA 70502
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
John Melvin Duhon

Scott A. Stefanski
Edwards, Stephanski & Zaunbrecher, L.L.P.
P.O. Drawer 730
Crowley, LA 70527-0730
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Jeffrey Meche and Patricia Meche

GENOVESE, Judge.

Defendant, John Melvin Duhon, appeals the trial court judgment awarding

Plaintiff, Jeffery Meche, $30,000.00 in general damages. We affirm.

FACTS

On April 30, 1999, Plaintiffs, Jeffrey Meche (“Meche”), and his wife, Patricia,

along with his brother, Jarrod, were at a bar (Antler’s) in Lafayette, Louisiana, when

Meche was struck in the face by Defendant, John Melvin Duhon (“Duhon”), without

provocation. Meche filed suit against Duhon asserting damages arising from an

intentional battery allegedly committed by Duhon. Patricia Meche filed a loss of

consortium claim. Defendant answered and filed a cross claim against Jarrod.

Pursuant to non-jury trial, the trial court found in favor of Plaintiffs and

awarded Meche damages as follows:

General Damages $ 30,000.00
Medical Expenses $ 3,611.00
TOTAL $ 33,611.00

Patricia Meche was awarded $1,000.00 for loss of consortium. Duhon’s cross

claim against Jarrod Meche was dismissed.

ISSUE

Although Defendant assigns as an error the trial court’s acceptance of “the self

serving testimony of the plaintiffs, when there was [sic] no ‘independent witnesses’

to the incident,” Defendant does not brief the issue of liability. Instead, he briefs the

issue of damages asserting that the trial court awarded an excessive amount for a

minor injury. Any specification or assignment of error not briefed is considered

abandoned. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4. Therefore, the sole

issue presented for our review is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion

in awarding $30,000.00 in general damages.

1

GENERAL DAMAGES

Duhon contends that general damages in the amount of $30,000.00 awarded

to Meche by the trial court is excessive. We disagree.

In Andrus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 95-0801, p. 8 (La.

3/22/96), 670 So.2d 1206, 1210 (citations omitted), the supreme court stated:

In appellate review of general damage awards, the court must
accord much discretion to the trial court judge or jury. The role of an
appellate court in reviewing awards of general damages is not to decide
what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the
exercise of discretion by the trial court. Only if the reviewing court
determines that the trial court has abused its "much discretion" may it
refer to prior awards in similar cases and then only to determine the
highest or lowest point of an award within that discretion.

Because discretion vested in the trial court is "great," and even
vast, an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general
damages. Reasonable persons frequently disagree about the measure of
general damages in a particular case. It is only when the award is, in
either direction, 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 that the appellate court should
increase or reduce the award.

Meche was originally treated by Dr. Linda Oge! on May 1, 1999, where he

presented with headaches, memory loss, dizziness, swaying and a contusion over his

left eye. He reported amnesia, left eye blurriness, dizziness and that things were

foggy. Following an MRI and CT scan he was referred to Dr. Leo de Alvare, a

neurologist.

On May 20, 1999, Meche saw Dr. de Alvare and voiced complaints of an

inability to concentrate, memory problems and irritability. He complained of an

inability to sleep and daily headaches. Dr. de Alvare ordered an EEG and rendered

a diagnosis of a closed head injury, cerebral concussion and amnesia. Meche returned

to see Dr. de Alvare on September 1, 1999, still having problems with concentration,

headaches and anger outbursts. On this visit, Meche was discharged and told to

2

return on an “as needed” basis.

Meche testified at trial that he also suffered chipped teeth as a result of the

altercation. He further testified that he was still having trouble sleeping and that he

had to undergo sleep studies and testing. At the time of trial, he still complained of

headaches, dizziness and irritability.

After carefully reviewing the record comprised of the testimony at trial and

exhibits, including medical records, reports and photographs, we find that the trial

court did not abuse its great discretion in awarding Meche $30,000.00 in general

damages.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs for

this appeal are assessed against Defendant.

AFFIRMED.

3