Collins v. Benton
| Decision Date | 03 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 18-7465 |
| Parties | WAYLAND COLLINS, et al. v. JOHN C. BENTON, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
SECTION “G” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
This action arises from a motor vehicle collision in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.[1] Before the Court is Plaintiffs Wayland Collins (“Collins”) and Alvin Polk's (“Polk”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) “Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, [or] in the Alternative Motion for a New Trial.”[2] Defendants Mark Ingle, John C Benton d/b/a Q&M Motor Transports, Innovative Transport Solution, Inc., Automotive Transport Services, Inc., and Northland Insurance Co.'s (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion.[3]
At the conclusion of five days of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs.[4]However, the jury found Collins 50% at fault for the accident, and the damages awarded were substantially less than those requested by Plaintiffs.[5] Apparently displeased with the jury's award, Plaintiffs now move the Court to enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict awarding them the total amount of their alleged past medical expenses, arguing that the jury verdict was “clearly erroneous” for failing to award past medical expenses.[6] Alternatively, Plaintiffs move for a new trial on the issue of damages for the same reason.[7] Finally, Plaintiffs move the Court to amend the judgment to reflect that Defendant Mark Ingle was 100% at fault for the accident because: (1) Plaintiffs argue that Defendants put forth “no evidence” that Collins had any comparative fault;[8](2) Plaintiffs contend that the Court's evidentiary rulings prevented them from establishing that Ingle was fully at fault for the accident.[9]
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 permits a party to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. However, a party waives its right to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict if that party fails to first move for judgment as a matter of law on the same issue.[10] As explained in more detail below, Plaintiffs did not move for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of past medical expenses, therefore, Plaintiffs waived their right to move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Under Rule 59, a party may move for a new trial. In granting a new trial, a district court may not disturb a jury's verdict if it is “clearly within the universe of possible awards which are supported by the evidence.”[11] Where a jury's award appears inconsistent, a reviewing court must examine the record to “determine if there [is] a reasonable basis discernible in the record for the apparent inconsistencies in [a] jury's verdict.”[12] Here, as detailed below, the Court finds that the jury's award is supportable by a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.
Finally, Rule 59 also concerns altering or amending judgments. Alteration or amendment under Rule 59 is not to be lightly granted, as “[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly” and the motion must “clearly establish” that alteration or amendment is warranted.[13] Additionally, Motions for New Trials or to Amend Judgments are “‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments.'”[14]As discussed below, Plaintiffs have not “clearly established” that the jury's apportionment of fault is erroneous, nor is this the proper vehicle for challenging the Court's evidentiary rulings.[15]Therefore, for the reasons more fully explained below, the Court denies the motion.
On August 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Mark Ingle (“Ingle”), John C. Benton d/b/a Q&M Motor Transports (“Q&M”), and Northland Insurance Co. (“Northland”) in this Court, seeking recovery for injuries and property damage that Plaintiffs allegedly sustained in an automobile accident.[16] According to the Complaint, on August 9, 2017, Plaintiff Wayland Collins was driving on Interstate 10 when, while exiting onto Interstate 510, he collided with an 18-wheeler driven by Ingle.[17] Plaintiffs alleged that Ingle was turning onto Interstate 510 and negligently misjudged his clearance, resulting in the motor vehicle incident at issue.[18] Plaintiffs additionally alleged that Ingle was cited for an “improper lane change.”[19] Plaintiffs brought negligence claims against Ingle and Q&M, who was allegedly Ingle's principal, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.[20] Plaintiffs also brought claims against Northland, who purportedly insured the 18-wheeler operated by Ingle.[21]
On September 10, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint.[22] On October 10, 2019, Defendants filed an amended answer to the Complaint.[23] In the Amended Answer, Defendants asserted the following additional affirmative defense:
Defendants plead the affirmative defense that Plaintiffs conspired to stage the alleged subject accident and that the alleged subject accident in this case was intentionally [caused] and/or staged by the Plaintiffs, and that Plaintiffs suffered no injury due to the fault of the Defendants.[24]
In support of this defense, Defendants pled that: “[w]ithin hours following the accident on August 9, 2017, Collins was in contact with Cornelius Garrison, Raphus Adams and Ryan Harris, who were also involved in alleged accidents similar to the alleged subject accident and are also current and/or former clients of Plaintiffs' counsel Vanessa Motta.”[25] Defendants cite to twenty-seven phone calls between Collins and these third-parties.[26] Defendants similarly pled that Polk was in contact with Cornelius Garrison within hours of the accident, as well as “with Plaintiffs' counsel's fiancé, Sean Alfortish.”[27]
A jury trial in this matter commenced on November 15, 2021.[28] After deliberating, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs.[29] The jury awarded Collins $10, 000 in future medical expenses (special damages) and $50, 000 in disability (general damages), and awarded Polk $4, 000 in future medical expenses and $76, 000 in disability.[30] The jury did not award Plaintiffs any damages for: past medical expenses, past and present physical pain and suffering, future physical pain and suffering, past and present mental pain and suffering, future mental pain and suffering, or loss of enjoyment of life.[31] The jury apportioned 50% fault to the drivers, Collins and Ingle, and 0% to the passenger, Polk.[32] On November 24, 2021, the Court entered judgment on the verdict in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants.[33] Considering that the jury had allocated 50% fault to Collins, the Court entered judgment in favor of Collins and against Defendants in the amount of $30, 000, and the Court entered judgment in favor of Polk and against Defendants in the amount of $40, 000.[34]
On December 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion.[35] Defendants filed their opposition on January 4, 2022.[36]
In the motion, Plaintiffs request three forms of relief. First, Plaintiffs move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) on the issue of past medical expenses.[37] Second, Plaintiffs move for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) on the issue of damages.[38] Third, Plaintiffs move to alter or amend the judgment to reflect that Ingle was 100% at fault.[39] The Court outlines each request for relief separately.
1. Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
Plaintiffs move for a JNOV, arguing that the jury verdict was “clearly erroneous” for failing to award past medical expenses.[40] In support, Plaintiffs argue that Louisiana law, not federal law, is controlling on this issue.[41] Plaintiffs assert that Louisiana circuit courts reverse jury findings when a jury awards general damages and future medical expenses but not past medical expenses.[42]In this case, Plaintiffs argue that the jury's award was internally inconsistent, contrary to law, and abusively low.[43] Plaintiffs assert that the jury was “required” to award past medical expenses because it found that the accident caused Plaintiffs' injuries.[44]
Plaintiffs also argue that the Court can grant a JNOV on the issue of past medical expenses without ordering a new trial.[45] Plaintiffs note that under the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, a federal district court sitting in diversity may not enter an additur.[46] However, Plaintiffs contend that an exception applies when damages have been “conclusively established as a matter of law.”[47] Plaintiffs assert that their past medical expenses “are established, were introduced[, ] and are concrete numbers.”[48] Thus, Plaintiffs submit that the Court may grant a JNOV awarding past medical damages without ordering a new trial.[49] 2. Motion for New Trial
Alternatively, if the Court does not grant a JNOV, Plaintiffs move the Court to order a new trial on the issue of damages.[50] Plaintiffs assert that the Court may grant a new trial if it “finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive, the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course.”[51] Plaintiffs contend that the jury's “failure to award past medical expenses constitutes an abuse of discretion” because the jury found that the accident caused Plaintiffs' injuries.[52] Plaintiffs also contend that the jury erred when it awarded future medical expenses, but not future pain and suffering.[53]
Next Plaintiffs argue that the jury's general damages award was “unreasonabl[e] and abusively low” because it failed to award damages for past, present, and future...
To continue reading
Request your trial