Mogg v. Armstrong
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., July 15, 1964 167 So. 2d 517; La., July 15, 1892 44 La. Ann. 884; La., December 15, 1868 20 La. 559
Mogg v. Armstrong, 176 So. 2d 463 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965).
Cited by
- Runfalo v. Meynard 242 So. 2d 599 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
- Miller v. Weaver 234 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1970
- Jenkins v. Johnson 212 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1968
- Smith v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters 182 So. 2d 741 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
- Mogg v. Armstrong 178 So. 2d 659 La. 1965
- Peterson v. Armstrong 176 So. 2d 453 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Peterson v. Armstrong 176 So. 2d 453
- Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb. 246 La. 963
Opinion text
TATE, Judge. In the companion appeal rendered this date, Peterson v. Armstrong, 176 So.2d 453 , all issues of this appeal have been decided except the plaintiff’s prayer for an increase in the award, and the defendants’ request for a reduction therein. The plaintiff lost four teeth as a result of the accident, as a result of which she underwent oral surgery -and was fitted with an upper plate, with attendant discomfort in use. She suffered a laceration in her mouth requiring 25 sutures to close, and also had bruises and contusions all about her person. She retained a tiny scar on her leg which is not readily apparent. The trial court found that the young lady recovered without apparent disfigurement. *464 The trial court’s award of $5,000 general damages will not be disturbed as within its large discretion in the matter. Ballard v. National Indemnity Co., 246 La. 963 , 169 So.2d 64 . As to the plaintiff’s request for an allowance of an additional $225 future medical expenses in addition to $457.14 medical expenses actually allowed, the trial court properly disallowed recovery of such future medical expense as too speculative under the testimony of the attending physician. Likewise, a claim for $65 travel expenses in connection with medical treatment was properly disallowed as not proved. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court judgment is affirmed, at the cost of the defendants-appellants. Affirmed. On Application for Rehearing. En Banc. Rehearing denied.