Monette v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 November 1977
• Docket Number: No. 6185,6185
• Citation: Monette v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 352 So.2d 423 (La. App. 1977)
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Parties: Clarence MONETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Page 423

352 So.2d 423

Clarence MONETTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 6185.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Nov. 17, 1977.

Thomas & Dunahoe by Edwin Dunahoe, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cook, Clark, Egan, Yancey & King by Herschel E. Richard, Jr., Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.

Gist, Methvin & Trimble by DeWitt T. Methvin, Jr., Alexandria, for defendants-appellees.

Before HOOD, CULPEPPER and FORET, JJ.

HOOD, Judge.

Clarence Monette claims damages for personal injuries sustained by him as the result of a motor vehicle collision.The defendants are Bobby L. Hamous, The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, against defendants Hamous and Aetna, for $4,706.99.His demands against State Farm were rejected.Plaintiff appealed.We affirm.

The determining issue presented is whether the amount of the award made by the trial judge is inadequate and should be increased.

The accident occurred in Natchitoches Parish on December 27, 1975.While plaintiff was driving his son's automobile with the latter's permission, the car was struck in the rear by a vehicle being driven by defendant Hamous.Plaintiff was injured as a result of that collision.Defendants concede that the sole cause of the accident was the negligence of Hamous.

At the time of the collision, there was in effect an automobile liability policy issued by Aetna to Hamous, providing bodily injury liability coverage up to $5,000.00 for each person.There also was in effect at that time an automobile liability policy issued by State Farm to plaintiff's son, covering the automobile which Mr. Monette was driving, which policy contained a provision for uninsured motorist coverage, up to a limit of $10,000.00 for injuries to each person.

As already noted, plaintiff instituted this suit against Hamous and both of the above insurers.Judgment was rendered by the trial court in favor of plaintiff, and against Hamous and Aetna, awarding plaintiff $4,500.00 as general damages, and $206.99 as special damages, making a total award of $4,706.99.Since the award was within the limits of the Aetna policy, plaintiff's demands against State Farm were rejected.Monette appealed, seeking to have the trial court judgment amended by increasing the award.It is that appeal which is before us now.

Plaintiff sustained a whiplash-type injury to his neck, with some aggravation of a pre-existing arthritic condition, as a result of the accident.He contends that he also sustained an injury to his "right sternoclavicular joint" as a result of that collision.He concedes that the award made by the trial court was adequate to compensate him for the injuries to his neck, but he argues that the court erred in failing to award him general damages for the injury to his sternoclavicular joint, as well as special damages for the future medical expenses which he feels he will have to incur in treating that injury.

The trial judge assigned reasons for judgment, but he did not state in those reasons whether he found that plaintiff sustained an injury to his sternoclavicular joint as a result of the accident, or whether the judgment which he rendered was intended to include an award of general damages for such an injury.He also made no determination as to whether plaintiff would have to incur future medical expenses for the treatment of any of his alleged injuries.

Monette reasons that the trial judge "apparently found the sternoclavicular injury not related to the accident herein," because the award of special damages was not sufficient to include the future medical expenses which necessarily would have to be incurred in treating such an injury.He contends that future medical expenses in the amount of approximately $1,300.00 would be required to treat the sternoclavicular joint injury, and that "had the trial court found the injury to the sternoclavicular joint related to this accident he would have certainly awarded these medical expenses, which he did not."

The evidence shows that at the time of the trial plaintiff had a condition diagnosed as a partial dislocation or subluxation of the right sternoclavicular joint, and that that condition caused him to suffer pain.It is possible that at some time in the future surgery will be required to correct that condition, and that the cost of the surgery will be more than the amount of special damages which were awarded by the trial court.Considering the nature of that injury or condition, we agree with plaintiff that the trial judge felt that plaintiff did not sustain the injury to his sternoclavicular joint as a result of the accident which occurred on December 27, 1975.We have reviewed the record with that question in mind, and have concluded that there is no error in the judgment rendered by the trial court.

Plaintiff was 68 years of age when the accident occurred.For several years prior thereto he had suffered from arthritis in his right shoulder and in the lower back.Immediately after the vehicles collided, plaintiff was taken to the hospital where x-rays were taken of his neck, shoulder, chest and back.The x-rays showed no fractures or displacement of bones, and plaintiff...