Appeals court Tagged Articles

A jury in the 16^th Judicial District Court awarded a garbage truck driver $8,307,050.00 in damages related to a September 16, 2016 accident with a train. The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit reversed the decision in Theopholia Thomas v. BNSF Railway Company– because the answers to the questions on the jury verdict form were inherently inconsistent.

A garbage truck driver (Thomas) sued BNSF, the company that maintained a railroad track in the Town of Baldwin. On September 16, 2016, Thomas turned too wide while crossing railroad tracks, and his left front tire dropped off wooden planks on the crossing. This caused his left front tire to become stuck between the tracks. Thomas immediately began reversing the truck, then pulled forward and began moving across the railroad tracks. At that time, a BNSF train was bearing down on the crossing, blaring its horn. Thomas accelerated but train struck the rear of his truck. Thomas was injured in the incident.

Thomas filed suit the merits in May of 2022, the jury was provided a verdict form with a series of questions to 1) assign fault between the BNSF and Thomas; 2) determine the proximate cause of the accident; and 3) state the amount of damages. The jury completed the form, and a judgment was rendered by the Court in favor of Thomas.

The jury found: 1) that Thomas was negligent; 2) but that Thomas’ negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident; 3) however, the jury then assigned Thomas 15% of the fault. BSNF challenged the judgment, claiming that the answers on the jury verdict form were inconsistent. If Thomas was at fault, but that fault was not a proximate cause of the accident, then how was he assigned a portion of the fault? Before a party can be assigned fault, the jury must find both that the party was negligent, and that party’s negligence is a proximate cause of the accident.

The court of appeal overturned the over $8 million verdict in favor of Thomas because it agreed that the jury verdict form answers were inconsistent. La. C.C.P. art. 1813(E) provides that when the answers on a jury verdict form are inconsistent with each other, then the court shall not direct the entry of judgment but may return the form to the jury for further consideration or may order a new trial. The appellate court found that the jury could not both: 1) find that Thomas’ negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident; and 2) assign 15% fault to Thomas. Therefore, the verdict was vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial.

The lawsuit will be tried again – to a different jury. Certainly a cautionary tale.

References:

Theopholia Thomas v. BNSF Railway Company, 2023 CA 1209 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/6/24).

In recent years, the dollar amount of general damage awards to personal injury plaintiffs has been on the rise. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that may signal greater scrutiny for heightened general damage awards going forward. In Pete, v. Boland Marine and Manufacturing Co., the state’s highest court changed the standard of review in quantum disputes to require courts of appeal to consider general damage awards in similar cases when determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion in awarding a specific general damage award.

In Pete, a 74-year old mesothelioma patient was awarded $9.8 million in general damages after it was found he was exposed to asbestos. The jury awarded $2 million for past and future physical pain and suffering, $2.3 million for past and future mental pain and suffering, $3 million for past and future disability, and $2.5 million for past and future loss of enjoyment of life. The appellate court held the defendant failed to demonstrate the general damage award “shocks the conscience,” and found the jury did not abuse its discretion.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the decision. In so holding, it also changed the standard by which appellate courts evaluate whether a trial court abused its discretion in awarding general damages. The Louisiana Supreme Court now instructs appellate courts to compare general damage awards to those awarded in similar cases in their review of the reasonableness of the trial court’s award. Applying the new standard, the Louisiana Supreme Court found the trial court abused its discretion and reduced the Pete plaintiff’s general damage award from $9.8 million to $5 million.

Previously, Louisiana courts employed a two-step analysis in evaluating general damage awards. First, the court of appeal determined whether the trial court’s award constituted a clear abuse of discretion. Second, and only if the court first determined that there was an abuse of discretion, the appellate court would consider prior damage awards in similar cases to determine what an appropriate award should have been. This test had proven problematic because there were no clear objective standards for determining whether the trial court’s award was an abuse of discretion.

The appellate court’s decision in Pete v. Boland Marine serves as an excellent example of the problems this test presented. While the majority found that the $9.8 million awarded to Pete did not “shock the conscience,” a dissenting judge believed the award did shock the conscience, because it far exceeded general damage awards in similar cases. The “shocking the conscience” test has been long criticized because of its lack of objectivity, as the result ultimately depended on the thoughts and feeling of the presiding judges. Critics argued this led to unpredictability within the law.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision reforms the two part test in an attempt to resolve this issue. The new test mandates that appellate courts consider damage awards in similar cases in the initial inquiry, to objectively consider whether the trial court abused its discretion under the particular facts and circumstances of the case at hand. The second step of the test remains unchanged. If the court finds that the trial court abused its discretion, then the appellate court will look to recent cases to determine what is the highest or lowest award a reasonable trier of fact could have found and then reform the damage award accordingly.

This decision is a significant change in the law. It aims to increase predictability within the law and affords defendants objective standards by which to challenge damage awards. However, it remains to be seen how courts will implement this new test in practice.

References:

Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., LLC, 23-170 (La. 10/20/23), reh’g denied, 23-170 (La. 12/7/23), 374 So. 3d 135.