Folse v. Fakouri
371 So. 2d 1120 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages for loss of earning capacity are not limited to a plaintiff's actual past earnings but may be based on the injured person's potential ability to earn money. The trier of fact is vested with much discretion in assessing such damages, which may include consideration of expert testimony, economic conditions, and the plaintiff's personal characteristics.
Facts:
- Francis Louis Folse owned and operated a school bus under a contract with the Jefferson Parish School Board.
- On April 20, 1971, while driving the bus, Folse was struck by a truck driven by John R. Mayer and owned by Clover Farm Creamery.
- As a result of the collision, Folse, who was fifty years old at the time, became totally and permanently disabled.
- Prior to the accident, Folse was vigorous and industrious, earning additional income by working as an auto mechanic and performing maintenance on his own vehicles.
- After the accident, Folse continued to own the bus and receive payments for its use, but he had to hire and pay substitute drivers to operate it.
Procedural Posture:
- Francis Louis Folse filed suit for personal injuries against Michalas E. Fakouri and others in a Louisiana trial court.
- A jury rendered a verdict and judgment in favor of Folse for $327,926.81.
- The remaining defendants, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal amended the judgment, reducing the damage award to Folse.
- Folse, as plaintiff-applicant, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's decision.
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 an appellate court err in reducing a jury's damage award for loss of past and future earning capacity when the award is based on the injured party's potential earnings rather than being strictly limited to their documented actual past wages?
Opinions:
Majority - Summers, C.J.
No. An appellate court errs by reducing a jury award for loss of earning capacity simply because it is not based on a strict calculation of past wages. A jury has much discretion to assess damages for the deprivation of what an injured plaintiff could have earned, which is a distinct concept from actual lost wages. The court reasoned that earning capacity is not determined by actual loss and that damages should be based on the injured person's ability to earn money, not just what they actually earned before the injury. Citing Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., the court affirmed that even an unemployed person is entitled to an award for diminished earning power. The jury was entitled to consider expert testimony about average salaries, inflation, and the plaintiff's industriousness to arrive at its award for both past and future loss of earning capacity, and the appellate court erred by disregarding this evidence and focusing only on a narrow calculation of lost wages.
Dissenting - Blanche, J.
Yes. The appellate court was correct to reduce the award because it should be based on the specific proof adduced at trial, not on general economic figures. The dissent argues that the Court of Appeal conducted a 'studied and accurate review of facts' based on the actual evidence of the plaintiff's earnings. In contrast, the jury improperly relied on an economist's speculative figures regarding the average salary of a bus driver in the United States. The dissent concludes that the evidence did not support the jury's larger award and that appellate courts should be encouraged to make such studied evaluations of the evidence.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal distinction between 'lost wages' and 'loss of earning capacity,' establishing the latter as a broader basis for recovery. It reinforces the significant discretion afforded to juries in calculating damages for what an injured person could have earned, thereby insulating such awards from appellate reduction as long as there is some supporting evidence in the record. The decision empowers plaintiffs to use expert testimony on economic trends and average salaries to argue for damages beyond their proven income history. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to challenge jury awards for lost earning capacity on the grounds that they are speculative or exceed past earnings.
