Joseph v. Ford Motor Co.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: CIACCIO
• Citation: Joseph v. Ford Motor Co., 499 So.2d 428 (La. App. 1986)
• Decision Date: 01 December 1986
• Docket Number: No. CA-2999,CA-2999
• Parties: Alton R. JOSEPH, Credell Buckner Dominguez, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Her Minor Children, Tonel Dominguez and Rahsaanica Joseph v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

Page 428

499 So.2d 428

Alton R. JOSEPH, Credell Buckner Dominguez, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Her Minor Children, Tonel Dominguez and Rahsaanica Joseph v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

No. CA-2999.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1987.

Writ Granted March 13, 1987.

Dermot S. McGlinchey, McGlinchey, Stafford, Mintz, Cellini & Lang, PC, New Orleans, for appellant.

Lawrence D. Wiedemann, W. Lloyd Bowers, Wiedemann & Fransen, New Orleans, for appellees.

Before GULOTTA, KLEES and CIACCIO, JJ.

CIACCIO, Judge.

We consider this matter on remand from the Louisiana Supreme Court. 483 So.2d 934. The only issue is whether the award for damages is excessive. We find the award excessive, and therefore, reduce the award to the highest reasonable amount.

Plaintiff was injured when he lost control of his new van because the braking system was defective. The van crashed into a concrete bridge support. Plaintiff brought an action in redhibition and an action in tort.

After the accident plaintiff was taken to Charity Hospital where he was treated and released. No one involved in the accident was admitted to the hospital. Plaintiff returned home, apparently suffering only from being emotionally shaken.

The next morning when plaintiff awakened, however, he found that his leg was numb. Two or three days later plaintiff consulted his family physician who suggested that he see an orthopedist or a neurosurgeon. Plaintiff consulted an orthopedic surgeon who examined him, including taking x-rays, and referred him to a neurosurgeon. The neurosurgeon also examined plaintiff, conducting certain tests. These two doctors found negative results from their tests and examinations. Any further testing would require hospitalization, which the doctors thought was unnecessary. Plaintiff was given some medication and told that he would probably be alright since the tests were negative.

Plaintiff continued to experience difficulty and a friend referred him to another neurosurgeon. This new neurosurgeon performed a myelogram and a diskogram, and determined that plaintiff had a ruptured disk. The doctor attempted traction and alternate medications as his initial treatment of plaintiff, but without results. The doctor recommended surgery. Ultimately he performed a double laminectomy at levels L4-L5, L5-S1.

After surgery plaintiff's condition was improved. After a period of convalescence plaintiff's doctor recommended that he try swimming as a suitable form of exercise. When plaintiff tried to swim, however, his back gave out again.

Plaintiff was admitted to the hospital and an orthopedist was consulted. The orthopedist had plaintiff undergo physical therapy, and he conducted additional diagnostic tests. The doctor fitted plaintiff with a back brace to which plaintiff did not adjust well and consequently did not find helpful. The orthopedist recommended that plaintiff undergo a spinal fusion, but indicated that this surgical intervention still may not relieve plaintiff's pain.

The orthopedist testified that plaintiff is unemployable because of his disability. His opinion was supported by an occupational therapist and vocational rehabilitationist.

Plaintiff's psychiatrist testified that plaintiff suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Plaintiff's friends and relatives testified concerning the adverse change to both his physical and mental condition as a result of the accident.

In a lump sum award the jury assessed plaintiff's damages at $1,700,000. The jury also awarded plaintiff a return of the purchase price of the van, and as attorneys' fees in the redhibition action, $187,000. Return of the purchase price of the van is not at issue.

Plaintiff had purchased the van and used it prior to the accident to run a transportation service for young children, to take them from home to school and back. He began this activity because a neighbor who ran a day care center could no longer transport the children herself and she asked plaintiff if he wanted to take over. Prior to this activity plaintiff was not employed at any particular job and was most of the time unemployed.

From the accident until trial plaintiff could not work. His general physical activities were greatly curtailed: he no longer actively participated in sports or played with his children or the other children in the community with whom he had previously been very involved. Although he continued his community involvement, physically he was limited by the injury to his back.

Plaintiff also suffered emotionally. Because of the physical pain and limitations plaintiff's emotional stature deteriorated, straining his personal relationships. Plaintiff sought counseling which was helping him overcome his distress and anxiety.

The evidence in the record supports two basic components of plaintiff's damages: lost income because he is "unemployable" and general damages because of his physical pain and suffering and his mental anguish. Appellant cites many cases in an attempt to establish an acceptable range for an award. Each case is different, however, and the amount of the award should be determined by the facts or circumstances peculiar to the case under consideration. The scope of appellate review is limited to lowering (raising) the award to the highest (lowest) point which, based on the particular facts of the case, is within the trial court's reasonable discretion. Reck v. Stevens, 373 So.2d 498 (La.1979).

Plaintiff presented expert testimony to establish his lost income. The expert initially calculated lost income on the basis of the future expansion of plaintiff's transportation service to involve three vans, and the opening by plaintiff and his girlfriend of a nursery school. Consideration of these possibly profit-generating, future activities is highly...