Brossett v. Howard
2008 WL 5159007, 998 So. 2d 916 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court must accord great deference to a jury's assessment of damages, as the trier of fact is vested with "great, and even vast, discretion." An award of general damages should only be disturbed on appeal if it is, in either direction, beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the effects of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances.
Facts:
- On March 7, 1998, after celebrating her birthday for several hours, Melody Howard became legally intoxicated.
- Howard's co-workers drove her to her own vehicle, and she was left to drive herself home alone.
- While driving, Howard fell asleep, swerved multiple times, crossed the entire highway, and ultimately collided head-on with a vehicle occupied by Amy Brossett and Craig Brossett.
- Craig Brossett died in the vehicle without regaining consciousness.
- Amy Brossett survived but was pinned in the wreckage for over an hour, suffering multiple severe injuries including fractures to her right hip, femur, kneecap, and right foot.
- At the time of the collision, Amy and Craig Brossett had a nine-month-old daughter, Emily.
- Howard later submitted a 'blind plea' of guilty to criminal charges of Vehicular Homicide for Craig Brossett's death and First Degree Vehicular Negligent Injury for Amy Brossett's injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Amy Brossett filed a personal injury and wrongful death lawsuit against Melody Howard and her insurer, Progressive Insurance Company, in a Louisiana trial court.
- Years later, Amy Brossett filed an amended petition to add her daughter, Emily, as a plaintiff.
- The parties jointly stipulated that Emily's claims were not prescribed and related back to the original filing date.
- Prior to trial, Melody Howard stipulated that she was 100% at fault for the accident, so the case proceeded to a jury trial on the issue of damages only.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding substantial damages to Amy Brossett and Emily, but denied their claim for exemplary damages.
- Defendants Melody Howard and Progressive appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, arguing the damage awards were excessive.
- Plaintiff Amy Brossett answered the appeal, challenging the jury's denial of exemplary damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the jury abuse its discretion by awarding damages for personal injury and wrongful death that the defendants claimed were excessive and unsupported by evidence, and by denying an award of exemplary damages to the plaintiffs?
Opinions:
Majority - Roy, Judge pro tempore
No, with the exception of the award for future medical expenses, the jury did not abuse its discretion. An appellate court must give great deference to a jury's damage awards, as reasonable persons frequently disagree about the measure of general damages, and should only disturb them if the award is beyond what a reasonable fact-finder could assess under the specific circumstances of the case. The jury's awards for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, future economic support, and wrongful death were all reasonably supported by the record. However, the award for future medical expenses was speculative and not supported by medical testimony setting out its probable cost, requiring a reduction. The jury's denial of exemplary damages was also not an abuse of discretion, as such awards are permissive, not mandatory, even when the statutory elements are met.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the extremely high standard of review for overturning a jury's damage awards in Louisiana tort cases. It illustrates the 'vast discretion' afforded to juries in calculating general damages, which are inherently speculative, and shows that an appellate court will not substitute its own judgment unless the award is truly beyond the pale of reasonableness. The decision also clarifies that a jury is not strictly bound by an expert's calculations for economic damages if other evidence warrants a deviation, and that the decision to award or deny exemplary (punitive) damages is purely discretionary, even in egregious cases of drunk driving.
