Wainwright v. Fontenot
774 So. 2d 70 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury verdict that awards special damages for medical expenses but no general damages for pain and suffering is not erroneous as a matter of law; such a verdict must be reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard to determine if there is a reasonable factual basis in the record to support it.
Facts:
- After a house fire in which his father was burned, John Scott Wainwright, a minor, began exhibiting signs of stress and was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
- A child psychiatrist, Dr. John Bambanek, prescribed John Scott a daily dose of five milligrams of Prozac.
- On March 7, 1996, a Walgreen pharmacy, through pharmacist Romona Fontenot, incorrectly filled the prescription with instructions for a twenty-milligram daily dose.
- For three consecutive days, John Scott's father, Bert Wainwright, administered the incorrect twenty-milligram dose of Prozac to his son.
- During these three days, John Scott's parents observed that he became increasingly combative, aggressive, and violent, threatening his mother with a fireplace poker.
- Upon discovering the error, the Wainwrights took John Scott to a clinic where he was admitted for overnight observation and released the following day.
Procedural Posture:
- Bert and Jenna Wainwright sued Walgreen Louisiana Company, Inc. and its pharmacist in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu (a state trial court).
- Following a trial, the jury found Walgreen 99% at fault and awarded the Wainwrights $1,500 in medical expenses but $0 in general damages.
- The Wainwrights, as appellants, appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal found the jury's verdict was legal error, increased the medical expense award to $7,372, and made a new award of $40,000 in general damages.
- Walgreen, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury verdict that awards special damages for medical expenses but no general damages for pain and suffering inherently inconsistent and erroneous as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Kimball, J.
No. A jury verdict awarding medical expenses but no general damages is not per se erroneous and should not be overturned unless the record reveals it is so inconsistent as to constitute an abuse of discretion. The court rejected a bright-line rule that an award of special damages must be accompanied by an award of general damages. Instead, an appellate court must afford great deference to the factfinder and analyze the specific evidence to see if a reasonable basis exists for the verdict. In this case, the jury had a reasonable basis to award medical expenses for the hospital stay as a justifiable precaution while simultaneously concluding the plaintiffs failed to prove the overdose caused compensable pain and suffering. The jury could have disbelieved the parents' testimony regarding the child's behavior or concluded it was a continuation of pre-existing issues, especially given medical testimony that Prozac would not take effect so quickly.
Concurring - Lemmon, J.
No. The jury's verdict should be upheld. A tortfeasor is liable for reasonable medical expenses incurred for immediate consultation and treatment after the tort, even if no serious injury ultimately results. The jury acted reasonably by awarding damages for the immediate hospitalization to ensure the child was safe, while also finding, as a matter of fact, that no long-term injury deserving of general damages occurred. This mixed factual-legal determination by the jury is entitled to great deference.
Dissenting - Johnson, J.
Yes. The jury's verdict was illogical and should not stand. It is inconsistent to find the defendant at fault for dispensing a dose four times the prescribed strength and award medical expenses for the consequences, yet find no injury occurred to justify an award for pain and suffering. The record supports an award for general damages, and the court of appeal's decision to award them should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies Louisiana tort law by rejecting a rigid, per se rule that an award of special damages necessitates an award of general damages. It firmly establishes that such 'zero general damage' verdicts are subject to a fact-specific abuse of discretion standard, thereby strengthening the deference given to jury findings on causation and damages. The ruling requires appellate courts to scrutinize the evidentiary record for a logical basis for the jury's verdict rather than automatically reversing. This impacts future personal injury litigation by making it more difficult to overturn jury verdicts that appear inconsistent on their face but may be supported by the jury's unique assessment of evidence and witness credibility.
