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 factual determination of a damage award unless the record clearly reveals that the jury abused its discretion. The evidence must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine if the award is below that which a reasonable trier of fact could have assessed.
Facts:
- On July 22, 2000, Donna Triay was in a Ford Explorer with her family when it was forcefully struck from the rear by a truck operated by Robby Brock.
- The impact caused Triay's vehicle to hit a guardrail, spin, and flip over three times, coming to rest upside down.
- Triay sustained significant head injuries in the crash, which medical experts diagnosed as a basilar skull fracture and a mild traumatic brain injury.
- Prior to the accident, Triay was an outgoing person who successfully managed the daily finances and bookkeeping for her family-owned printing businesses, Printers Wholesale Group Inc. and Crescent Graphics and Printing.
- Following the accident, Triay experienced persistent symptoms including short-term memory loss, cognitive difficulties (especially with math), chronic headaches, dizziness, depression, anxiety, and significant personality changes.
- Despite her injuries, Triay continued to perform some business functions, such as signing company checks, and participated in family activities, including vacations.
- Triay was a co-owner of the family businesses, which, after a dip in income in the year of the accident, recovered and then surpassed their pre-accident income levels in subsequent years.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Triay filed suit in a Louisiana trial court against Robby Brock and various insurance companies for injuries from a car accident.
- Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that Brock was at fault and that certain credits, totaling over $312,625, would apply against any award for Triay.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on the sole issue of the amount of damages.
- The jury returned a verdict awarding Triay a total of $268,405 in damages.
- Because the stipulated credits exceeded the jury's verdict, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing Triay's claims.
- Triay, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, arguing the jury's 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:
Did the jury abuse its discretion by rendering a damage award that the plaintiff alleged was inadequately low in light of the extensive evidence of her physical, psychological, and economic injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Marion F. Edwards
No. The jury did not abuse its discretion, and its damage award was not inadequately low. An appellate court affords great deference to a jury's assessment of damages and may only disturb an award if the record clearly discloses an abuse of that discretion. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, the court found the award was within the range a reasonable trier of fact could assess. The court held that evidence of the family businesses' overall income and profits was relevant and properly admitted because Triay was an owner, not merely a wage-earning employee, making her earning capacity intertwined with the business's success. Furthermore, while the evidence demonstrated Triay suffered significant injuries, it also showed she was still able to perform some work and enjoy family life, and her psychological symptoms could potentially be alleviated with treatment. Although the court characterized the award as 'rather low,' it was not 'abusively so,' and the court is not entitled to substitute its own opinion for that of the jury.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the high 'abuse of discretion' standard of review for jury damage awards in Louisiana tort law, demonstrating an appellate court's reluctance to second-guess a jury's factual findings on quantum. The decision's key significance lies in its treatment of lost earning capacity for an owner of a closely held corporation. It establishes that a plaintiff's damages are not limited to lost wages; rather, the court will look at the entire financial picture, including business profits and total family income, which can complicate or even undermine a plaintiff's claim if the business remains profitable. This precedent affects litigation strategy, signaling that defendants can introduce broader financial evidence to counter lost wage claims for plaintiffs who are business owners.
