No. 2004-988 Precedential Affirmed Processed

Detraz v. Lee

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed April 11, 2007 · 955 So. 2d 1287

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., April 13, 2005 900 So. 2d 1099

Cited by

Billy E. Loftin, Jr. & Phyllis Loftin v. Haylie Royer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Charles Freeman v. Sandra Noble La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Heirs of John Beckwith LLC, Price Heirs LLC, James M. Foster Trust, Linda Price … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Keaty v. RPM International, Inc. 208 So. 3d 507 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Frederic Stelly, Jr. v. Terry Joseph Blanchard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Stelly v. Blanchard 207 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 129 So. 3d 1272 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
Dray v. Bendily 69 So. 3d 1200 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Youngblood v. Southern Air, Inc. 58 So. 3d 1020 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Detraz v. Lee 950 So. 2d 557

Opinion text

THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge. After concluding that the jury was correct in failing to find causation in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded this case so that we may “consider the plaintiffs remaining assignments of error.” Detraz v. Lee, d/b/a Virgin Nails, 05-1263, p. 12 (La.1/17/07), 950 So.2d 557 . The plaintiff entreats us to find that the trial court’s failure to bring the jury into the courtroom to review the alleged inconsistent testimony of Dr. Ronald Daigle was reversible error. We decline the plaintiffs invitation. While the trial court incorrectly refused to allow the jurors back into the courtroom, La.Code Civ.P. art. 1795 accords discretionary power to the trial court. Even if the jurors were brought into the courtroom, Section B of Article 1795 does not mandate that the trial judge must allow the reading of the requested testimony. The plaintiff further complains that the alternate juror should have been discharged once the jury retired to begin deliberations. We agree. However, the record fails to disclose that the alternate juror participated in the deliberations. The alternate juror’s mere presence during jury deliberations was harmless. CONCLUSION Considering the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. AFFIRMED.