You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Lowery v. Rainwater

Citations: 602 So. 2d 238; 1992 La. App. LEXIS 1983; 1992 WL 143519Docket: No. 23684-CA

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 24, 1992; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a case involving a two-car collision, the court addressed appeals from both the plaintiffs and the defendants regarding damage awards. The plaintiffs were initially awarded $11,000, but both parties contested aspects of the judgment. The defendants argued that the damage awards were excessive or unsupported, particularly focusing on the rental car expense incurred by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, sought increased awards for general damages and loss of consortium. The court specifically examined the rental car expense, finding that the defendants should not be responsible for the optional 'Road Hazard Protection' insurance coverage purchased by the plaintiffs, resulting in a reduction of the rental car expense from $794.21 to $545.46. Apart from this specific adjustment, the court affirmed the remaining damage awards. The final judgment was thus amended to reflect the reduced rental car expense while confirming the other components of the awards, providing a balanced resolution to the contested damages in the appeal.

Legal Issues Addressed

Excessive Damage Awards on Appeal

Application: Defendants contested the damage awards as excessive or unsupported, but the court affirmed the awards after review, adjusting only the rental car expense.

Reasoning: The defendants argued that the damage awards were excessive or unsupported...

Judgment Amendment on Appeal

Application: The judgment was amended to reduce the rental car expense from $794.21 to $545.46, while affirming other damage awards.

Reasoning: The final judgment was amended to reflect this reduction while confirming other awards.

Rental Car Expense Recovery and Insurance Coverage

Application: The court ruled that defendants are not liable for optional insurance coverage purchased by plaintiffs, reducing the rental car expense awarded.

Reasoning: The court determined that the defendants should not be liable for the optional coverage purchased by the Lowerys.