No. 51366 Precedential Processed

Hebert v. Travelers Insurance

Louisiana Supreme Court · Filed May 20, 1971 · 248 So. 2d 332

Cited by

Prejeant v. Gray Insurance Co. 176 So. 3d 704 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Tangela Annette Brown v. Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Anthony v. Georgia Gulf Lake Charles, LLC. 146 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Buckbee v. Aweco, Inc. 626 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Streeter v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., Inc. 533 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
O'DONNELL v. Fidelity General Ins. Co. 344 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Becnel v. Ward 286 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Brouillette v. State, Through Dept. of Highways 275 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Inabinet v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. 262 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Moore v. Central Louisiana Electric Co. 257 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Boykin v. Lindenkranar 252 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Miller v. Thomas 258 La. 285

Opinion text

TATE, Justice (dissenting). The trial jury awarded the plaintiff $25,000 for serious injuries, apparently accepting the testimony of an attending speciálist, who examined, treated, and hospitalized the plaintiff over a period of five months. In reducing the award to $5,000 general damages, the court of appeal relied on the testimony of two orthopedic specialists, who examined the claimant either one or two times and then for purposes of .litigation, as well as that of the surgeon who initially treated claimant as an emergency patient. The intermediate court feels that it can evaluate the testimony of these three specialists as well as did the trial jury, because the doctors testified only by deposition. The court overlooks, however: That the opinion of these doctors as to the painful residual of the injuries must in part be based upon the respective doctors’ evaluation of the veracity of the plaintiff’s complaints; that the trial jury, which observed the plaintiff over four days of trial, was in a far better position to make this evaluation, based upon all the medical and lay evidence, than were the two orthopedists who, for an .examination fee, examined the plaintiff only for an hour or so; and that mere numerical superiority of medical witnesses does not constitute a preponderance of the evidence. In denying the writ, my brethren of the majority apparently feel that the claimant’s application presents only a question of fact, and that this court’s writ-of-review jurisdiction is limited to questions of law. Art. VII, Sec. 11, La.Constitution. For the reasons above noted, I feel that the court of appeal was in error as a matter of law in reducing the award. See also, Miller v. Thomas, 258 La. 285 , 246 So.2d 16 (1971). I respectfully dissent from the denial a f this writ.