Mason v. Hilton
| Decision Date | 07 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2012 CA 2073,2012 CA 2073 |
| Parties | BRANDON MASON, ROBERT HORNSBY, CARLOS MOSES, REGINALD JARVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF REGINALD JARVIS, JR. AND REGANIYA JARVIS v. JAMES RAY HILTON, JR., W.W. ADCOCK, INC., AND HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Brandon Mason
John W. Perry, Jr.
In this automobile collision case, defendants, James Ray Hilton, Jr., W.W. Adcock, Inc., and Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, appeal the trial court's granting of a judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff, Brandon Mason. For the following reasons, we reverse that judgment and reinstate the jury's verdict, together with the judgment of May 7, 2012, rendered in accordance with the jury's verdict.
On January 9, 2009, Mason was driving a vehicle with three passengers, Robert Hornsby, Carlos Moses, and Reginald Jarvis, southbound on North Acadian Thruway in East Baton Rouge Parish, when a vehicle driven by Hilton and owned by W.W. Adcock, Inc. attempted to turn left from the right southbound lane on North Acadian Thruway, causing a collision with a vehicle being driven by Mason. All of the occupants of Mason's vehicle originally filed suit against defendants. Hornsby, Moses, and Jarvis settled their claims prior to trial and dismissed all of the defendants with prejudice on March 10, 2010. The rights of Mason were reserved to proceed against the defendants. Prior to trial, Mason and the defendants stipulated that Hilton was 100% at fault for causing the automobile accident; that Hilton was in the course and scope of his employment with W.W. Adcock at the time of the accident; that Hartford had in effect a liability policy covering Hilton and W.W. Adcock at the time of the accident; and that the damages did not exceed the $1,000,000 policy limits.
A jury trial was held beginning April 10, 2012, on the issue of damages. The jury returned a verdict awarding Mason $106,259.56 for past medical expenses, $55,952.50 for future medical expenses, and $25,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. The jury did not award any damages for past, present and future physical or mental pain and suffering. The trial court signed a judgment inaccordance with the jury verdict on May 7, 2012. On May, 10, 2012, Mason filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV). A hearing was held on the JNOV on August 6, 2012, and the trial court granted the JNOV.1 The trial court signed the judgment on the JNOV on September 11, 2012, and awarded $125,000 for past, present, and future physical pain and suffering and $25,000 for past, present, and future mental pain and suffering, leaving the original award of $25,000 for loss of enjoyment of life as it was.
Defendants appeal both the September 11, 2012 judgment granting the JNOV and the May 7, 2012 judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. The defendants contend that the trial court erred in granting the JNOV, and alternatively, that the trial court award was excessive.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1811 allows a party to move for a JNOV. This court has recognized the established standard to be used in determining whether a JNOV has been properly granted:
JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the trial court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The motion should be granted only when the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable persons could not reach different conclusions, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. The motion should be denied if there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions. In making this determination, the trial court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. This rigorous standard is based upon the principle that "[w]hen there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact." (Citations omitted).
Wood v. Humphries, 11-2161 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/9/12), 103 So. 3d 1105, 1110, writ denied, 12-2712 (La. 2/22/13), 108 So. 3d 769 (quoting Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So. 2d 94, 99).
The trial court must first determine whether the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiffs that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict. In other words, if reasonable persons could have arrived at the same verdict, given the evidence presented to the jury, then a JNOV is improper. Wood, 103 So. 3d at 1110.
An appellate court reviewing a trial court's grant of a JNOV employs the same criteria used by the trial court in deciding whether to grant the motion. The appellate court must determine whether the facts and inferences adduced at trial point so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary finding of fact. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the appellate court must affirm the grant of the JNOV. However, if the appellate court determines that reasonable minds could differ on that finding, then the trial court erred in granting the JNOV, and the jury verdict should be reinstated. Id.
Our initial inquiry is whether the evidence at trial so overwhelmingly supported an increase in general damages to Mason that reasonable jurors could not have concluded otherwise. If so, then the trial court was correct in granting the JNOV. However, if reasonable jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might conclude from the evidence that Mason was entitled to general damages in the amount the jury awarded, then the trial court erred in granting the motion, and the jury's verdict should be reinstated. See Gutierrez v. Louisiana Dep't of Trans. & Dev., 11-1774 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/23/12), 92 So. 3d 380, 386, writ denied, 12-1237 (La. 9/21/12), 98 So. 3d 343.
The evidence at trial was that Mason was involved in two accidents prior to the January 9, 2009 accident (Hilton accident). In the first accident he injured his left shoulder and lower back, and in the second accident he injured his neck and back. For both of these accidents he was treated by Dr. Michael Goff, a chiropractor, and was released from treatment approximately one month before the Hilton accident. Mason suffered neck, back, and a right knee injury in the Hilton accident. Mason testified that he also treated with Dr. Goff following the Hilton accident, but that the treatment took longer and the pain he suffered was worse than the previous two accidents. With the previous two accidents, Mason only took over-the-counter medication for his pain. Following the Hilton accident, he also treated with an orthopedist, Dr. Joseph Boucree, who prescribed pain medication and six steroid injections between 2010 and 2012. Mason did not begin taking prescription pain medication until January 21, 2011, two years after the Hilton accident. The jury awarded Mason past medical expenses of $106,259.56. They also awarded Mason future medical expenses of $55,952.50.
Dr. Boucree saw Mason beginning March 8, 2010, for neck and back pain with complaints of radicular pain in the upper and lower extremities. At the time, Mason was 29 years old. An MRI taken January 22, 2011, of Mason's back showed mild disc space narrowing at L5-S1. The majority of Mason's complaints were regarding his lower back, but his cervical spine evidenced multiple disc bulges. Dr. Boucree diagnosed Mason with cervical and lumbar strain, and explained that Mason had a soft tissue injury. As a result of Dr. Boucree's findings, Mason received three steroid injections by the time of Dr. Boucree's deposition in April 18, 2011. Dr. Boucree testified that Mason's neck improved with conservative management with Dr. Goff by February 14, 2011. However, Mason's lower back pain persisted, and Dr. Boucree determined that Mason wouldneed two to three steroid injections per year to manage that pain. Dr. Boucree testified that he did not see Mason until over a year after the Hilton accident, but agreed that, based on Mason's history, it was more likely than not that the lower back and neck pain were related to the Hilton accident.
Dr. Goff testified that he treated Mason for the two previous accidents with physical therapy, electrical stimulation, ultrasound, and spinal manipulation on both his cervical and lumbar spine, both of which fully and completely recovered before the Hilton accident. Although Dr. Goff had ordered an MRI in January 2008, Mason and Dr. Goff decided that, since Mason kept improving, they would not have the MRI performed. He treated Mason for symptoms in his cervical spine, lumbar spine, and right knee following the Hilton accident. After an MRI was performed in January 2010, Dr. Goff referred Mason to Dr. Boucree. Dr. Boucree referred Mason back to Dr. Goff to receive physical therapy treatment. Dr. Goff testified that Mason would have to live with his...
To continue reading
Request your trial