Horton v. Mayeaux

• Decision Date: 30 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 2005-CC-1704.,2005-CC-1704.
• Citation: Horton v. Mayeaux, 931 So.2d 338 (La. 2006)
• Parties: Diane T. HORTON v. Robert J. MAYEAUX, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., and Progressive Security Insurance Company.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 338

931 So.2d 338

Diane T. HORTON v.Robert J. MAYEAUX, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., and Progressive Security Insurance Company.

No. 2005-CC-1704.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 30, 2006.

Hannah, Colvin & Pipes, Baton Rouge, Janice M.C. Reeves, for applicant.

Steven A. Adams; Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, Charles L. Chassaignac, IV, Baton Rouge, for respondent.

CALOGERO, Chief Justice.

We granted the writ application filed by defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.("State Farm"), to determine whether the district court exceeded its authority when it ordered a new trial on its own motion, while at the same time refusing to grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict("JNOV") filed by plaintiff, Diane T. Horton, a pleading that did not include an alternative motion for new trial.For the reasons set forth below, we find that a district court has authority to order a new trial on its own motion, pursuant to La.Code of Civ. Proc. arts.1971 and 1973, so long as the district court has continuing jurisdiction over the case because a party has filed a motion for new trialand/or a motion for JNOV.Thus, we affirm in this casethe district court's decision to order a new trial on its own motion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises out of a January 17, 2002, automobile accident that involved at least four vehicles traveling in the same direction on South Sherwood Forest Boulevard in the City of Baton Rouge.According to Ms. Horton's petition, the accident was caused by the defendant, Robert J. Mayeaux, who failed to yield, causing his 2000Ford Excursion to strike the back of a stopped 1993 GMC 6000 that then struck Ms. Horton's 1994 Honda Accord and forced her to strike the vehicle preceding hers.As a result of the accident, Ms. Horton claims that she suffered contusions and other trauma, including injury to her spine.Ms. Horton filed suit against Mr. Mayeaux and his liability insurance carrier, State Farm, as well as her uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") insurance carrier, Progressive Security Insurance Co.("Progressive").Ms. Horton sought damages for past, present, and future physical and mental pain, physical disability, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses, loss of income and earning capacity, and other special damages.Ms. Horton also alleged that she was entitled to a jury trial and requested the same.

Prior to trial, the district court granted summary judgment on liability in favor of Ms. Horton.The trial to determine damages was originally scheduled by the district court as the second civil jury trial set for Tuesday, August 17, 2004.However, because of delays caused by the first-scheduled civil jury trial set for the same day, jury selection for Ms. Horton's case was delayed until approximately 4 p.m. on Thursday, August 19, 2004.During the interim, Ms. Horton's claims against her UM insurance carrier, Progressive, were settled and Progressive was dismissed from the suit.Following jury selection and opening statements, the presentation of evidence began at about 7 p.m. on August 19 and continued until approximately 9:30 p.m.The trial reconvened around 9:30 a.m. on Friday, August 20, 2004.The case was submitted to the jury at approximately 5:35 p.m. that day.

At approximately 7 p.m. on August 20, the jury returned a verdict awarding Ms. Horton a total of $37,000 for the following items of damages: $13,000 for past medical expenses, $8,000 for future medical expenses, $15,000 for past physical pain and suffering, and $1,000 for mental anguish and distress.The jury did not make any awards for future physical pain and suffering loss of enjoyment of life, or disability.The district court signed a judgment in conformity with the jury verdict on Tuesday, August 31, 2004.

On August 27, 2004, several days before the district court signed the written judgment, Ms. Horton filed a motion for JNOV in the district court, pursuant to La.Code of Civ. Proc. art. 1811.Ms. Horton asserted in her motion for JNOV that "reasonable minds could not differ as to the amount of damages based upon the evidence presented."Ms. Horton's motion further stated as follows:

Mover shows that the verdict rendered by the jury in this matter during the late evening hours of Friday, August 20, 2004 was inconsistent in several particulars, namely that full recovery of all medical expenses was permitted, and accepting the treatment and diagnoses pertaining to those expenses as legitimate, the past pain and suffering amount of $15,000.00 and mental anguish and distress award of only $1,000.00 was abusively low; no award was made for loss of enjoyment of life or disability in spite of uncontroverted testimony concerning same and the jury awarded future medical expenses without any future pain and suffering, contrary to the law.

(Emphasis in original.)

A hearing on Ms. Horton's motion for JNOV was held on October 8, 2004, after which the motion was taken under advisement and counsel for both parties were given three days to submit memoranda to the district court.A second hearing was held on February 9, 2005, after which the district court orally refused to grant Ms. Horton's motion for JNOV, but instead ordered a new trial.At the end of the hearing, the district court explained its reasoning as follows:

In this particular instance, if this Court has worked the jury too hard, then that's the error of the trial judge and not the jury.If the trial judge failed to give proper instructions and it visited unfairness to either side, then this court is obligated to correct that error or allow the appellate court to correct that error.

The testimony in this case was essentially unrefuted with respect to liability and several issues of damages, personal injury.The court is very familiar with the standard for JNOV.It's a high standard, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, whether or not a rational trier of fact could find.[sic] And applying that to several issues as raised by the moving party in the motion for JNOV, this court could answer in the affirmative.

However, in the interest of justice, the court is of the opinion that there may have been some error committed by the trial court that militated against the petitioner.Therefore, it would be manifestly unjust to uphold the verdict.But the court is not going to grant a JNOV.It will grant a new trial.Judgment to be signed accordingly.

On March 10, 2005, the district court signed a written judgment stating, in pertinent part, as follows:

The Court, after hearing the argument of counsel and considering the law and evidence, for reasons orally expressed, on its own motion hereby orders that a new trial is GRANTED.

The Court does not grant plaintiff's request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding it unnecessary to rule on that motion in light of its new trial ruling.

State Farm sought writs, which were denied by a panel of the court of appeal without reasons, with one judge dissenting also without reasons.Horton v. Mayeaux, 05-0499 (La.App. 1 Cir.5/31/05).This court granted State Farm's application for supervisory writs.Horton v. Mayeaux, 05-1704(La.2/3/06), 922 So.2d 1155.

DISTRICT COURT'S AUTHORITY TO ORDER NEW TRIAL

The primary question herein is whether a district court may order a new trial on its own motion as an alternative to granting a party's motion for JNOV, when the motion did not request a new trial, even in the alternative.The same question was presented to this court in Stuart v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,550 So.2d 641(La.1989).In that case, a jury had entered a verdict in favor of the defendant, to which the plaintiff responded by filing a motion for JNOV, but not a motion for new trial.SeeStuart v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,544 So.2d 78, 79(La.App. 1st Cir.1989).Following a hearing on the motion for JNOV, the district court took the matter under advisement, then on his own motion ruled both parties into court to show cause why a new trial should not be ordered instead of a JNOV.Id.The district court then entered judgment ordering a new trial and denying the motion for JNOV.Id.The defendant sought writs in the court of appeal, which found no support for the procedure utilized by the district court in any statutory authority or any federal or Louisiana jurisprudence.Id.

The plaintiff sought writs in this court, which summarily granted supervisory writs, stating as follows: "Judgment of the court of appeal is reversed; trial court order for new trial is reinstated."550 So.2d 641.Justices Marcus and Lemmon stated that they would have granted the writ for argument, while Justices Calogero and Lemmon concurred in the judgment, stating that they"would prefer that this court write an opinion addressing the issue whether a timely motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict impliedly includes an alternative motion for a new trial so that the trial court can grant either relief."Id.

In its decision reversing the district court's judgment ordering a new trial in Stuart,the court of appeal cited La.Code of Civ. Proc. art.1971, which provides as follows:

A new trial may be granted, upon contradictory motion of any party or by the court on its own motion, to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues, or for reargument only.If a new trial is granted as to less than all parties or issues, the judgment may be held in abeyance as to all parties and issues.

The court of appeal noted in Stuart that La.Code of Civ. Proc. art.1971 is a codification of the jurisprudence authorizing a district court to grant a new trial on its own motion.544 So.2d at 79.In support of that statement, the court of appeal cited Mitchell, to Use of Tarrt v. Louisiana Industrial Life Ins. Co.,204 La. 855, 16 So.2d 855(La.1943), in which this court held that, although a district court may order a new trial on its own motion,...