Burgard v. Allstate Ins. Co.
904 So.2d 867, 2005 WL 1277954 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court will not disturb a jury's determination of the amount of damages unless the record clearly reveals that the jury abused its discretion, and the award is beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the particular injury under the specific circumstances.
Facts:
- Donna Triay and her husband owned and operated two printing businesses, for which Triay served as the bookkeeper and managed daily finances.
- On July 22, 2000, a truck operated by Robby Brock forcefully struck the rear of Triay's Ford Explorer, causing it to hit a guardrail and flip over three times.
- As a result of the accident, Triay sustained a head injury diagnosed by multiple physicians as a basilar skull fracture and a mild traumatic brain injury.
- Following the accident, Triay experienced persistent symptoms including headaches, dizziness, short-term memory loss, difficulty with concentration, depression, anxiety, and significant personality changes.
- Despite these impairments, Triay continued to perform some bookkeeping duties for her family's businesses, such as signing company checks.
- The family businesses were relocated during the 1999-2000 period, impacting their finances.
- After the accident, Triay went on several family trips and was depicted in home videos enjoying family activities.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Triay filed a personal injury lawsuit against Robby Brock, his parents, and their insurers in a Louisiana trial court.
- Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that Brock was at fault, leaving only the amount of damages for the jury to decide.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding Triay a total of $268,405.
- The trial court entered a judgment dismissing Triay's claims because the jury award was less than the stipulated pre-trial credits she had already received from insurers.
- Triay, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, arguing the damage award was grossly inadequate.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury's damage award for personal injuries constitute a clear abuse of discretion when extensive medical evidence of permanent cognitive and psychological harm is countered by evidence showing the plaintiff continued to perform business functions and participate in family activities?
Opinions:
Majority - Edwards, J.
No. The jury's damage award for personal injuries does not constitute a clear abuse of discretion. An appellate court must afford great deference to a jury's factual determination of damages and may only overturn an award if it is so low or high that it is beyond what a reasonable fact-finder could assess. The court reasoned that the jury was presented with conflicting evidence; on one hand, extensive medical testimony detailed Triay's significant and lasting physical, cognitive, and psychological injuries. On the other hand, the defense presented evidence that Triay continued to perform business functions, her reported wages increased post-accident, and she participated in family vacations. The court also held that evidence of the family's overall business income was relevant and properly admitted because Triay was a business owner, not just a salaried employee, and her earning capacity was tied to the business's profitability. Although the court acknowledged the damage award was 'rather low,' it was not 'abusively so,' as a reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion based on the totality of the evidence presented. Therefore, the appellate court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the jury.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the principle of appellate deference to a jury's findings on damages. It establishes a very high bar for overturning a damage award, requiring a clear showing of an abuse of discretion, not just disagreement with the amount. The decision also provides important guidance on claims for lost earning capacity for plaintiffs who are business owners, clarifying that their entire financial picture—including business profits and family income—is relevant, not just their stated salary. This makes it more challenging for such plaintiffs to segregate their wage loss claims from the overall financial success of their closely held businesses.
