Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; July 14, 1994; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
In the personal injury case involving plaintiff Tyrone Alonzo and defendants Silverman Marks Plumbing Company and driver Etienne Lacoste, the appellate court reviewed a trial court judgment that upheld a jury verdict favoring the plaintiff. The central issue was whether the jury's damages award was manifestly erroneous. The accident occurred on September 27, 1991, when Alonzo's vehicle was struck by Lacoste, who was acting within the scope of his employment.
At the time of the accident, Alonzo was 27 years old and employed as a bus driver, with no prior significant back issues, although he had experienced minor back sprains from previous bus-related accidents. Post-accident, Alonzo reported severe pain, requiring physical therapy and preventing him from engaging in daily activities, including playing with his child and maintaining sexual relations. He experienced ongoing pain and was concerned about job security for eight months following the accident.
Medical evaluations revealed that Alonzo suffered from neck and back sprains and was later diagnosed with two bulging discs in his neck and two herniated discs in his lower back, attributed to the 1991 accident. Dr. Gerald Davis, an orthopedic surgeon, confirmed that the accident caused the herniations and aggravated pre-existing conditions, assigning a total permanent impairment rating of 30 percent for the lumbar spine and 5-8 percent for the cervical spine. Although Dr. Davis eventually cleared Alonzo to return to work, he imposed restrictions to avoid physical strain. Alonzo's permanent limitations exclude him from light or heavy manual labor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment based on the findings and evidence presented.
Plaintiff was prohibited from jogging, playing basketball, or engaging in any bouncing activities to prevent further spinal injury. Dr. Davis advised against surgery, believing it would not improve plaintiff's condition, but noted a more than 50% risk of worsening if further injury occurred. Future surgery could cost between $15,000 and $35,000, and plaintiff had a higher likelihood than average of developing arthritis and further spinal degeneration. The jury awarded $400,000 in damages, with approximately $40,000 in special damages, leading to about $360,000 in general damages. Defendants contended that this award was excessive and an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court's standard for reviewing general damage awards emphasizes the considerable discretion of the trier of fact, indicating that appellate courts should rarely alter such awards unless they are unreasonable. Plaintiff sustained cervical and lumbar spine injuries from a 1991 accident, supported by Dr. Davis's findings of two herniated discs in the lower back and two bulging discs in the neck. Although Dr. Soli's MRI review corroborated Dr. Davis's findings, Dr. Laborde, who examined the plaintiff later, found normal results and disagreed with Dr. Soli. Ultimately, the jury favored Dr. Davis's testimony over Dr. Laborde's, also considering Dr. Soli’s report which indicated additional bulging discs.
No abuse of jury discretion was found in determining damages for the plaintiff, who missed approximately eight months of work due to severe pain and emotional distress following an accident. The plaintiff experienced significant lifestyle restrictions, preventing him from engaging in activities like basketball, jogging, and playing with his young son. Despite the defendants’ attempts to downplay the impact of these limitations, the jury accepted the plaintiff's testimony regarding his full visitation rights with his child. The defendants also argued that the absence of surgery should reduce damages; however, medical testimony indicated a possibility of future surgery due to the plaintiff's weakened spine. The jury justifiably considered this potential future need when awarding $360,000 in general damages.
The plaintiff, a 27-year-old man, suffered two herniated discs in his lumbar spine and aggravated additional discs in his neck, resulting in permanent restrictions on manual labor and physical activities. Although the damages awarded could be viewed as generous, they were not deemed unreasonable or shocking to the conscience, considering the injuries and their implications for the plaintiff's quality of life. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed, as the award was within the jury's discretion and was supported by the evidence presented.
