Guilbeau v. WW Henry Co.
| Decision Date | 13 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 87-1750. |
| Parties | Olan J. GUILBEAU, Sr., et al. v. W.W. HENRY COMPANY, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Elwood Clement Stevens, Jr., Kleinpeter Schwartzberg & Stevens, P.L.C., Morgan City, LA, Charles K. Hutchens, Kent Mercier, Mercier & Duhon, Lafayette, LA, Benton Musslewhite, Mary B. Martin, Elizabeth Burkhardt, David Crump, Houston, TX, for plaintiffs.
Gregory K. Moroux, Bradley J. Haight, Voorhies & Labbe, E. Gregory Voorhies, Lafayette, LA, for W.W. Henry Co., Truck Ins. Exchange.
H. Lee Leonard, Donna R. Moliere, Leonard & Leonard, Lafayette, LA, for Champion Intern. Corp., Champion Bldg. Products.
John Powers Wolff, III, Keogh Cox & Wilson, Baton Rouge, LA, for Mobile Home Industries Inc., Housing By Tiffany Inc.
Jeffrey Allan Rhoades, Davidson Meaux Sonnier McElligott & Swift, Lafayette, LA, for CMH of Florida Inc., Clayton Homes Inc.
Vance A. Gibbs, Bradley C. Myers, Kean Miller Hawthorne Darmond McCowan & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, Brian F. Blackwell, Shreveport, LA, for Georgia Pacific Corp.
Russ M. Herman, Morton H. Katz, Herman Herman Katz & Cotlar, New Orleans, LA, for Weyerhauser Co.
James R. Nieset, Plauché Smith & Nieset, Lake Charles, LA, for Temple-Inland Forest Products Corp.
J. Warren Gardner, Jr., Christovich & Kearney, New Orleans, LA, for Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
Arthur I. Robison, Allen & Gooch, Lafayette, LA, for Home Indem. Co.
Harry J. Philips, Jr., Taylor Porter Brooks & Philips, Baton Rouge, LA, for Louisiana Pacific Corp.
John A. Jeansonne, Jr., Jeansonne & Briney, Lafayette, LA, for Borden Inc.
Keith Michael Borne, Rebecca Feeney Doherty, Sylvia S. Lowe, Onebane Donohoe Bernard Torian Diaz McNamara & Abell, Patrick J. Hanna, Rabalais Hanna & Hays, Lafayette, LA, for Salem Carpet Mills.
Elwood Clement Stevens, Jr., Kleinpeter Schwartzberg & Stevens, Morgan City, LA, for Kleinpeter Schwartzberg & Stevens.
Michael W. Adley, Judice Hill & Adley, Lafayette, LA, for Elwood C. Stevens.
Before the court is a Rule 50 Post-Trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Rule 59 Motion for New Trial filed by defendants W.W. Henry Company (Henry) and Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck Insurance), and opposed by plaintiffs Olan J. Guilbeau and Macklyn Guilbeau. Defendants seek a post-trial judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 in their favor and, alternatively, request a new trial or remittitur under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59.
The only plaintiff in this case who had any possible contact with the glue manufactured by the defendant, W.W. Henry Company, was Olan J. Guilbeau. His damages are alleged in general language in interrogatory 3.1. They can be more specifically described as occasions of emotional outbursts when confronted by stressful conditions and periods of depression brought on by exposure to organic solvents on August 14-16, 1986. These conditions are slightly improved.1 He had complained to his employer for more than a year prior to the incident of August 14, 1986 about the odor in his office that no one else seemed to notice. Consequently, his employer did nothing to ease the situation until the repair activities began in August 14, 1986. He is nauseated or sickened by the odor of many products in daily use in homes and in public, such as cleaning fluids, perfumes, hair spray, deodorant, shampoo, detergents, smoke and the like. Incredibly cigarette smoke which is heavily laced with toxic solvents, does not irritate him. He is a chain smoker, as he has been for many years. He continues to smoke two and one-half to four packages of unfiltered Pall Mall cigarettes daily and has no complaints when others smoke cigarettes in his presence. This enigma is unexplained and beyond understanding. Although he can and does go out in public when desirable or necessary, the effect of these substances on him limits such excursions. It also limits his and his wife's contact with friends and members of his family. It also creates stress in his homelife with Mrs. Guilbeau. He has described himself as having been a workaholic since it was necessary to work weekends as well as weekdays in his job as a salesman of mobile homes. He alleged loss of earning capacity and the enjoyment of life. For these injuries the jury awarded him two million dollars.
The damage interrogatory in the verdict reads as follows:
3
What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would reasonably
compensate Olan Guilbeau and Macklyn Guilbeau for their
damages, if any? You should consider the following elements
of damages to the extent that you find them established by a
preponderance of evidence. Answer in dollars and cents, if
any
Past &
Present Future
1. Olan Guilbeau's physical pain and suffering; mental anguish
and suffering, including such items as fear, anxiety
humiliation, embarrasment sic, and nervousness; Olan
Guilbeau's disability; Olan Guilbeau's hospital, medical,
nursing, drugs, and other related expenses; Olan Guilbeau's
loss of earning capacity; Olan Guilbeau's loss of
enjoyment of life, that is the normal ability to enjoy the
pleasure and pursuits of life.
1.0M 1.0M
2. Macklyn Guilbeau's mental pain and suffering, including
such items as fear, anxiety, humiliation, embarrasment
sic, and nervousness; Macklyn Guilbeau's loss of enjoyment
of life, that is the normal ability to enjoy the
pleasure and pursuits of life; Macklyn Guilbeau's loss of
value of household services of Olan Guilbeau; Macklyn
Guilbeau's loss of consortium.
450K 450K
It is clear that interrogatory 3.2 of the verdict of is an absolute error as a matter of law. It lists as possible damages to Macklyn Guilbeau many of the same damages alleged in favor of Olan Guilbeau in interrogatory 3.1 and then adds "consortium" as an additional damage. Macklyn Guilbeau had no contact whatsoever with W.W. Henry Company or the Henry glue and she has no direct cause of action against defendant Henry or any of the numerous damages alleged in interrogatory 3.2, except loss of consortium. As the wife of Olan Guilbeau she will enjoy with him many of the fruits of his award. Her only cause of action against W.W. Henry Company is that she is the wife of Olan Guilbeau and as such can claim loss of consortium.
The record reflects that the Guilbeaus have had a successful solid marriage both before and after the incidents of August 1986 with no discernable danger of dissolution. Although his wife declares that he is not as helpful around the house as he previously was, it is certain that the two million dollar award in his favor should help to mitigate this deficiency in their household. Mr. Guilbeau is fully capable of managing his own affairs, he is ambulatory and has no physical deficiencies which have prevented him from taking care of himself during Mrs. Guilbeau's absence from home. If this were not so, she could not continue to hold a full-time job with Dr. Callender as an administrative clerk.
Under Louisiana law, the elements of a loss of consortium claim can be broken down into seven kinds of compensable losses: (1) love and affection; (2) society and companionship; (3) sexual relations; (4) performance of material services; (5) support; (6) aid and assistance; and (7) felicity. Finley v. Bass, 478 So.2d 608 (La.App. 2d Cir.1985); see also Terro v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, 631 So.2d 651, 657 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1994) (). Significantly, Louisiana courts have recognized that "loss of consortium" does not include mental anguish suffered by an uninjured spouse and have consistently held that mental anguish is not compensable as a separate item of damage under La.Civ.Code art. 2315(B), Louisiana's loss of consortium provision. See, e.g., Vicknair v. Dimitryadis, 640 So.2d 275, 280 (La.App. 4th Cir.); Sharp v. Metropolitan Property and Liab. Ins. Co., 478 So.2d 724, 728 (La.App. 3d Cir.1985).
To determine whether the jury's award to Macklyn Guilbeau is excessive, the award at issue must be compared with rulings in other factually similar cases decided under Louisiana law. Douglass v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 897 F.2d 1336, 1339 (5th Cir. 1990). According to the court in Vicknair, "Louisiana appellate courts do not favor high consortium awards ... had the general range appears to be between $5,000 and $10,000, with generally high awards having been reduced." 640 So.2d at 280. But, higher consortium awards have been upheld in cases where the evidence suggests that the injuries to the injured spouse are permanent, severely disabling, and have caused a major disruption to the marriage. See Peter v. Allstate Ins. Co., 563 So.2d 1309, 1311 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial