91-1664 La.App. 4 Cir. 3/3/94, Clement v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 03 March 1994 |
| Citation | 634 So.2d 412 |
| Parties | 91-1664 La.App. 4 Cir |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel, Landry & Becnel, Reserve, for plaintiff/appellee (Davey Paul Clement).
Robert H. Matthews, DeRussy, Bezou, Matthews & Solomon, New Orleans, for plaintiff Alton Sartin.
Robert J. Caluda, Law Offices of Robert J. Caluda and Associates, New Orleans, for plaintiff/appellee (Mickey Maitre).
Joseph V. Dirosa, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff/appellee (Paul Ayo, Jr.).
Mary-Elizabeth Paltron, Bagert & Trinchard, New Orleans, for plaintiffs/appellants (State of Louisiana and Delgado Community College).
Charles L. Chassaignac, Carmelite M. Bertaut, Kenneth J. Servay, Douglas L. Grundmeyer, David R. Richardson, Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, New Orleans, for defendant/appellant (The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.).
Gerald E. Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, Fallon, David & Ates, New Orleans, for plaintiffs/appellees (Mickey Maitre, Albert Weidenbacher, III, Mark Abadie, Douglas Faust, Patrick Prigmore, Kevin Reynolds, Alton Sartin, Henry J. Gaspard, Jr., Paul Ayo, Jr.).
Ivan David Warner, III, Carimi Law Firm, Metairie, for plaintiff Albert Wiedenbacher, III.
Michael T. Pulaski, Robert W. Maxwell, Gina S. Montgomery, Pulaski, Gieger & LaBorde, New Orleans, for defendant/appellee (Ford Motor Co.).
Frank J. D'Amico, Darla D'Amico, New Orleans, for plaintiffs/appellees (Henry Gaspard, Jr. and Kevin Reynolds).
Before LOBRANO, ARMSTRONG and PLOTKIN, JJ.
[91-1664 La.App. 4 Cir. 1] PLOTKIN, Judge.
This appeal follows trial court judgments on liability and damages in nine consolidated cases arising from an April 25, 1986 single-vehicle accident caused by the blowout of the right rear tire on a van carrying members of the Delgado Community College baseball team. The plaintiffs filed suit in negligence against Brent S. Griffin, the student coach who was driving the van at the time of the accident, and against Delgado and the State of Louisiana (Delgado/State), as well as various public boards and individuals connected with the school. Additionally, the plaintiff filed suit in strict products liability against both Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, which manufactured the tire, and Ford Motor Company, which manufactured the van. The claims against the public boards and the individuals were dismissed by agreement of the parties prior to trial. Delgado/State also filed suit in strict products liability against Ford and Goodyear.
The case was bifurcated by agreement of the parties, and the liability and damages portions were tried separately. The case against the private defendants was tried to a jury, while the case against the public defendants (Delgado/State) was tried to a judge as required by LSA-R.S. 13:5105.
[91-1664 La.App. 4 Cir. 2] Following the liability portion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict holding Goodyear 60 percent liable for causing the accident and Delgado/State 40 percent liable. Ford was exonerated of any liability. The trial judge subsequently adopted the jury's findings on liability.
Thereafter, the trial judge released the liability jury and announced his intention to try the damages portion of the case to a different jury. Several of the parties filed writ applications challenging that decision to this court and to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The supreme court eventually refused the parties' request for a mistrial and ordered the trial judge to try the damages portion to a new jury, citing judicial economy.
A different jury was selected, and the plaintiffs presented their damage cases back-to-back to the same jury. The jury decided the cases one at a time, returning lump-sum damage awards in the following amounts:
Mickey Maitre $2,002,717.75
Davey Clement 1,000,000.00
Alton Sartin 450,000.00
Mark Abadie 374,839.50
Douglas Faust 85,276.75
Patrick Prigmore 76,673.08
Henry Gaspard 55,000.00
Kevin Reynolds 35,000.00
Paul Ayo, Jr. 25,590.00
The trial judge adopted the jury's assessment of damages for each of the individual plaintiffs.
The liability judgment and all of the damage judgments have been appealed. Both Goodyear and Delgado/State appeal the liability judgment, each challenging both the finding that it was liable for the accident and the finding that Ford has no liability for the accident. Both Goodyear and Delgado/State also seek further review of the trial court's decision to dismiss the original jury. Additionally, Delgado/State challenges the trial judge's decision to adopt the jury findings on liability. Plaintiff Davey Clement joins Goodyear and Delgado/State in challenging the finding that Ford has no liability for the accident.
On the damages issues, Goodyear and Delgado/State challenge all of the awards, claiming each one is excessive for various reasons. Goodyear claims generally that all the damage awards are about twice the highest award a reasonable jury could have entered. Additionally, Goodyear and Delgado/State challenge the trial judge's refusal to grant their [91-1664 La.App. 4 Cir. 3] motions to sever the various damage trials and his refusal to allow Delgado/State to present evidence of payment of medical expenses. Furthermore, Goodyear and Delgado/State contest various evidentiary rulings made by the trial judge during the damage trials. Plaintiffs Douglas Faust, Patrick Prigmore, Henry Gaspard, and Kevin Reynolds each filed a cross appeal, seeking an increase in their quantum awards.
The accident occurred as the Ford Club Wagoneer van, which was carrying 13 passengers, travelled north on Interstate 59 (I-59) north of Slidell en route to Meridian, Mississippi for an intercollegiate baseball game. When the blowout occurred, Griffin was unable to maintain control; Griffin held a Class A driver's license, but not a Class C chauffeur's license. During the process of the accident, the vehicle rolled over at least three times, finally landing on its wheels in the grassy median of I-59. Several of the passengers were ejected from the vehicle during the accident; two of the passengers were under the van after the accident. The plaintiffs suffered injuries of various degrees, which will be detailed in the "DAMAGES" section of this opinion.
At the time of the accident, the van and the tires were owned by Delgado/State. The tires, including the tire which blew out, were part of the original equipment of the van. The mileage on the van at the time of the accident was 24,013. Ten of the passengers filed suit; two of the passengers and the driver did not file suit.
The general liability issues to be decided in this appeal include the following:
A. The judge's dismissal of the original jury
B. The judge's adoption of jury findings
C. Goodyear's liability
D. Delgado/State's liability
E. Ford's alleged liability
[91-1664 La.App. 4 Cir. 4] A. The judge's dismissal of the original jury
Goodyear and Delgado/State challenge the propriety of the judge's dismissal of the original jury, an action contrary to the mandatory provisions of La.C.C.P. art. 1562, relative to bifurcation of trials, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
B. If a defendant has been found liable by a jury, the court shall proceed with the trial on the remaining issues before the same jury unless all parties consent to a trial before a different jury.
(Emphasis added.) The appellants argue that they were prejudicially affected by the trial judge's failure to follow the mandatory provisions of the above article.
In response to writ applications on this issue, the Louisiana Supreme Court made the following statement:
Granted. Although the trial court erred in discharging the jury, judicial economy and C.C.P. art. 2164 dictate that we order the trial court to proceed with a new jury to complete the damages portion of the case; otherwise the writ is denied.
The plaintiffs claim that this issue is no longer appealable because of the above statement, since the Supreme Court cited La.C.C.P. art. 2164, which gives an appeals court broad power to enter any judgment which is just under the circumstances. They claim that any error by the trial judge must now "yield[ ] to the larger question of what is just and fair at this time."
The appellants' argument that this issue remains appealable despite the above statement is based on a second statement from the Louisiana Supreme Court, made in response to a second writ application concerning the appealability of an "interim decree" on liability entered by the trial judge. In that writ decision, the Supreme Court stated as follows:
Denied. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, the "interim decree" rendered by the trial judge is not an appealable partial judgment under La.Code of Civ.P. art. 1915. Therefore, an appeal need not be taken from that decree at this stage in the proceedings. The trial judge is to proceed with a new jury to complete the damage portion of the case as previously ordered. Thereafter, an appeal may be taken from a judgment on the entire case.
The appellants claim that the last sentence of this second statement suggests that the trial court's decision might yet be appealable, despite the court's previous statement. [91-1664...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorensen By and Through Dunbar v. Shaklee Corp.
... ... 4 The testing revealed no traces of EtO ... , Inc., 951 F.2d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.1991). Applying Frye, that court determined that ... (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)); Clement v. Griffin, 634 So.2d 412 (La.Ct.App.1994) (cause ... ...
-
Chatman v. S. Univ. at New Orleans
... ... , or notifying campus police on-line; and (4) calling 911. On January 10, 2010, Ms. Chatman ... Larrea v. Cefalu, 140607, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/25/15), 162 So.3d 1224, 1228. The mere ... (a) In Clement v. Griffin, [911664, 921001, 93059197, 930648 ... ...
-
94-0585 La.App. 4 Cir. 5/16/95, Young v. Logue
... ... Damages filed in March of 1990, Young added Pauli & Griffin Company, Inc. ("Pauli & Griffin") as a defendant, alleging ... at ---- - ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2796-97; Clement, 634 So.2d at 427. The Daubert factors are not a rigid, ... ...
-
Sevario v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp.
... ... 00; 3) future medical expenses— $80,000.00; 4) future lost wages and loss of earning capacity; ... 1st Cir.1982) ... La. C.C.P. art. 1601 ... See Clement v. Griffin, 91-1664, 92-1001, 93-0591-97, and ... ...
-
Photographs, slides, films and videos
...is truly gruesome, it should not be excluded. See, for example, Heath v. Makita Corp., 681 N.Y.S.2d 289 (1998); Clement v. Griffin, 634 So.2d 412 (La.Ct.App. 1994); Rivera v. City of New York, 160 A.D.2d 985, 554 N.Y.S.2d 706 (1990); Paducah Area Public Library v. Terry, 655 S.W.2d 19 (Ky.C......
-
Photographs, Slides, Films and Videos
...is truly gruesome, it should not be excluded. See, for example, Heath v. Makita Corp., 681 N.Y.S.2d 289 (1998); Clement v. Griffin, 634 So.2d 412 (La.Ct.App. 1994); Rivera v. City of New York, 160 A.D.2d 985, 554 N.Y.S.2d 706 (1990); Paducah Area Public Library v. Terry, 655 S.W.2d 19 (Ky. ......
-
Photographs, Slides, Films and Videos
...is truly gruesome, it should not be excluded. See, for example, Heath v. Makita Corp., 681 N.Y.S.2d 289 (1998); Clement v. Grifin, 634 So.2d 412 (La.Ct.App. 1994); Rivera v. City of New York, 160 A.D.2d 985, 554 N.Y.S.2d 706 (1990); Paducah Area Public Library v. Terry, 655 S.W.2d 19 (Ky.Ct......
-
Table of Cases
...Dept.,1999), §5.300 Clear v. Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education, 23 S.W.3d 896 (Mo.App. 2000), §22.404 Clement v. Griffin, 634 So.2d 412 (La.Ct.App. 1994), §44.600 Clermont v. State, 704 A.2d 880, 348 Md. 419 (1998), §4.600 Cleveland v. Bryant, 512 S.E.2d 360, 236 Ga.App. 459 ......