Gunn v. Robertson
2001 WL 1429128, 801 So. 2d 555 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant takes his victim as he finds him and is responsible for all natural and probable consequences of his tortious conduct, including the aggravation of a pre-existing medical condition; thus, when an appellate court determines a jury's damage award for such injuries constitutes a clear abuse of discretion, it will modify the award to the highest or lowest reasonable point within the trial court's discretion.
Facts:
- On April 1, 1998, Randall Gunn, a 34-year-old self-employed welder, was proceeding southbound on Barataria Blvd. and stopped at a red light.
- When the light turned green, Gunn looked and began to proceed through the intersection, but then saw James Robertson's car coming from his left side.
- Gunn engaged his clutch and slammed on the brake, causing his truck to make contact with Robertson's car toward the back wheel.
- Robertson, who was 79 years old, testified he entered the intersection on a yellow light but was unable to complete a left turn due to traffic congestion; he described the impact as a 'light tap'.
- Gunn testified that upon impact, his body twisted to the front and left, and the next morning he felt stiff, sore, and had tingling toward his feet.
- Gunn had a pre-existing congenital spinal defect, spondylolisthesis, which was asymptomatic and had not caused him difficulty with his back prior to the accident, allowing him to perform heavy manual labor.
- After the accident, Gunn experienced constant back difficulties, including a herniated disc, which required surgery and had not resolved by the time of trial.
- Three weeks after the accident, Gunn began medical treatment, eventually seeing an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Kenneth Adatto, who diagnosed disc pathology and spondylolisthesis and recommended surgery related to the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 19, 1998, Randall Gunn, Sr., individually and on behalf of his minor children and wife Tammy Gunn, filed a lawsuit for damages arising from an automobile accident against James Robertson and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in a trial court.
- On April 28, 2000, plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Alfred P. Bowles, II, and on May 1, 2000, filed a motion to strike a portion of the deposition testimony of Dr. Kenneth Adatto, both of which were denied by the trial court.
- Trial by jury was held on May 15-19, 2000, and the jury rendered a verdict finding James Robertson 70% at fault and Randall Gunn 30% at fault, awarding Gunn $1,000 for physical pain and suffering, $1,700 for past medical expenses, and $5,400 for past lost wages, but finding no loss of consortium for his wife and children.
- On May 31, 2000, defendants filed an offer of judgment for $35,000 (made on February 22, 2000) and a motion to tax costs against plaintiffs under La. C.C.P. art. 970.
- On August 8, 2000, the trial court rendered judgment in conformity with the jury verdict, awarding plaintiffs $5,700.00 (total $8,100.00 reduced by 30% for Gunn's fault), granted the defendants' motion to tax costs against plaintiffs ($4,100.00), and denied plaintiffs' motion for costs.
- Plaintiffs (Randall Gunn et al.) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, naming James Robertson and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the jury commit manifest error in awarding inadequate damages for physical pain and suffering, and past and future medical expenses, given Randall Gunn's pre-existing, asymptomatic spinal condition was aggravated by the accident? 2. Did the trial court err in taxing costs against the plaintiffs under La. C.C.P. art. 970 when the ultimately adjusted damage award exceeded the defendants' offer of judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Sol Gothard
Yes, the jury committed manifest error in its damage awards for physical pain and suffering, and past and future medical expenses, resulting in an improper assessment of costs against the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, found that the jury's award of $1,000 for pain and suffering was below what a reasonable trier of fact could assess, especially considering the well-settled rule that a defendant 'takes his victim as he finds him' and is responsible for aggravating a pre-existing condition. Randall Gunn's pre-existing spinal condition was asymptomatic prior to the accident, but became symptomatic and required surgery afterward; the defendants failed to present evidence of another particular incident causing the injury, thus a legal presumption of causation applied. Based on this, and a review of prior awards for similar injuries, the court amended the general damages for pain and suffering to $25,000. The jury also erred in not awarding the full proven amount of $13,942.19 for past medical expenses, and $59,915.00 for future medical expenses, as these were established as necessary and inevitable by medical testimony and were undisputed as to amount. However, the court affirmed the jury's findings on past lost wages, future lost wages, loss of earning capacity, loss of consortium, and allocation of fault, concluding that these findings were not manifestly erroneous. Consequently, because the total amended damages ($25,000 general + $13,942.19 past medical + $59,915 future medical = $98,857.19) reduced by 30% fault ($69,200.03) exceeded the defendants' $35,000 offer of judgment by more than twenty-five percent, the trial court erred in taxing costs against the plaintiffs under La. C.C.P. art. 970. The court reversed the costs assessment and held defendants liable for trial and appeal costs.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the 'thin-skull plaintiff' or 'eggshell skull' rule in Louisiana tort law, emphasizing that a defendant must compensate a victim for the full extent of the aggravation of a pre-existing condition. It highlights the high bar for appellate courts to overturn jury damage awards, requiring a finding of 'clear abuse of discretion,' but also demonstrates the court's willingness to intervene when awards are clearly inadequate based on the evidence and established legal principles. The decision further clarifies the application of Louisiana's offer of judgment statute (La. C.C.P. art. 970), making it clear that costs are assessed based on the final adjusted judgment, which includes any modifications made on appeal, rather than the initial jury verdict.
