compquantum.com computer aided quantum 2017...i, james eric johnson, maintain a law license, but...

A User’s Guide to ourcomprehensive litigation reference

and advanced suite of tools forLouisiana personal injury research

CompQuantum.com Computer Aided

Quantum2017

CompQuantum.com is a service of InCode Research, L.L.C.230 Chancellor Ave.

Saint Gabriel, LA 70776225.572.5180

ContentsIntroduction iWhat is InCode Research, L.L.C.? ii1 Registration and Subscriptions 1 1.1 Free trial period 1 1.2 Subscription plans 2 1.3 Adding users to existing Multi-User and Firm plans 3 1.4 View and edit user profile 3

2 Basic Case Presentation 4 2.1 Case header 4 2.2 Damage report 5 2.3 Opinion text 6

3 Additional Case Tools 7 3.1 Case report 7 3.2 Parish details 8 3.2.1 Parish details - population 9 3.2.2 Parish details - education 9

3.2.3 Parish details - family income 10 3.3 Judge and attorney case lists 11 3.4 Case references 12 3.4.1 Case references - case notes 12 3.4.2 Case references - citing cases 12 3.4.3 Case references - cited cases 13 3.4.4 Case references - cited statutes 134 The Home Page 135 Quantum Search 14 5.1 Quantum - A comment on methodology 14 5.2 Quantum - Search by injury 15 5.2.1 Quantum - Search by injury help 15 5.2.2 Quantum - Single injury search 15 5.2.3 Quantum - Two injury searches 16 5.2.4 Quantum - Three injury searches 16 5.2.5 Quantum - A note on commonly associated injuries 17 5.3 Quantum - Search by tag 17 5.4 Quantum - Loss of Consortium 18

5.5 Quantum Search History 18 6 Case Search 19 6.1 Search by Citation 19 6.2 Search by Case Name 20 6.3 Alternative case search methods 20 6.3.1 Search by case type 20 6.3.2 Search by judge name 21 6.3.3 Search by attorney name 22 6.3.4 Search for word or phrase 22 6.4 Date Search 23

6.5 Saved Cases 237 Interest Calculation 238 Brief Processor 24

8.1 Brief Processor Access Portals 258.2 Brief Processor Features 26

9 Courts & Demographics 2810 Louisiana Statutes 2911 Issue Reference 3012 Expert Reference 3113 Physician Reference 3214 Louisiana Law Blog 33

i

Introduction

CompQuantum.com was first launched in 2016 after several years development. It began as an effort to systematically compile the entire corpus of Louisiana quantum case law in an easily searchable digital format. Along the way, several features were added to enhance the context and broaden the content. That process continues.

My name is J. Eric Johnson and InCode Research, L.L.C. is my company. I am a 1990 Mechanical Engineering graduate of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. I obtained a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1995. For the last 13 years I have been a partner in the Baton Rouge office of Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, L.L.P. I retired from the firm effective January 1, 2017 to manage InCode Research full time.

CompQuantum.com features a suite of tools for research specific to Louisiana litigation. It was designed for the needs of practicing attorneys, judges and insurance claims professionals. The research functions are intended to be neutral as to plaintiff or defense interests. The only qualifications for inclusion in the database are relevance and reliability.

In the past year I began including trial court judgments. The number is growing rapidly with feedback from subscribers and my full time attention to the site. The only basis for excluding any damage award from inclusion is an appellate reversal on the issue of quantum. There are a number of cases in the system that will be returned in response to a matching quantum search that have been reversed for reasons other than quantum. I try to consistently identify these cases and include links to reports of the appellate decisions affecting the validity of judgments. The site, however, does not purport to Shepardize the cases. I recommend that users verify status of judgments by reference to a reliable resource designed for that purpose.

Although it is primarily a personal injury reference, the expanding scope of coverage includes information useful to any researcher interested in Louisiana litigation and appellate practice. In addition to the quantum service, the site includes demographic data for all 64 Louisiana parishes, text of many relevant statutes (over 500 at last count), links to the local rules for all 42 civil judicial district courts, a table of limited jurisdiction courts, expert witness and physician references, a Louisiana law blog, a judicial interest calculator and a case search function.

I welcome suggestions. This is a practitioner’s tool for interested professionals. If a feature should be added, I will attempt to do so. I can’t promise to add every idea, but input is necessary for this site to remain relevant and for Compquantum.com to grow a vibrant user community. My goal is for Compquantum.com to become an indispensable reference for any professional interested in personal injury litigation in Louisiana. This guide will help orient you to the available options and show you how to implement them.

Sincerely,

© 2017 InCode Research, L.L.C.

1ii

What is InCode Research, L.L.C.?

Legal Engineering in the Digital Domain

I am thrilled to have your attention and interest in the services of CompQuantum.com. The rest of this manual is dedicated to helping you get the most out of the site. But InCode Research, L.L.C. is more than a website. It is a technology driven media and communications company.* Compquantum.com is a showcase for what InCode Research can do for clients needing assistance with the public display side of technology solutions. Below are a few examples of other ways that InCode Research services may benefit you:

Even as trials become more rare, technical expectations for taking a case to trial grow more demanding. Jurors expect and some courts require that presentation of evidence be crisp, clean and - most important - electronic. Talk to us about how you can satisfy these demands with presentations that demonstrate efficiency, competence and flair. Add a “wow factor” to the most mundane evidence.

House your next client presentation in a digital media package. Static slideshows put linear handcuffs on dialogue. Your base presentation can be part of a package providing flexibility to go off topic as needed, while retaining the ability to return to your script if necessary at any time.

The InCode database includes tables of information beyond the scope of Compquantum.com. We do not use or offer subscription data for any promotional purpose. We do, however, have information at our disposal through non-subscription sources that political candidates needing to reach an audience of attorneys have used to great effect. If you are thinking of running for office, contact us for more information.

However you want your operation to shine in the digital age, InCode is your partner to get it done.

Put an engineer with 21 years litigation experience on your team today!

*InCode Research, L.L.C. (“InCode Research”) is not a law firm. I, James Eric Johnson, maintain a law license, but services provided through InCode Research are not designed to provide, offer, suggest, warrant or imply legal advice or legal assistance to its customers or yours. InCode Research is an information and technology resource. InCode Research reserves the right to offer its services without limitation as to conflicts of interest that apply to attorneys in the representation of clients. Communications with InCode Research are never privileged unless expressly agreed in writing. InCode Research will not share information obtained from customers unless compelled to do so by law, but that policy does not rise to the level of, or represent in any way, an acceptance of a formal attorney-client confidentiality agreement. To the extent we express opinions, they are not intended to be, nor should they be accepted as advice for the purpose of legal representation. InCode Research cannot and will not accept the role of attorney in the formation of any attorney-client relationship.

Inquiries seeking legal assistance or services should be directed to me personally through [email protected].

1 Registration and Subscriptions1.1 Free trial period

Compquantum.com subscription services are available for 7 (seven) days free.

There are two ways to start your free trial. Both require registration and submitting a payment method. Actual payment will not be collected until after the trial period. You can complete the process entirely online by following the instructions under Option 1 below. Anyone wanting to avoid submitting payment information online should follow the instructions under Option 2.

Option 1

1. Click on the “LOGIN-REGISTER-SUBSCRIBE” link on the right side of the site header.2. CLICK the button on the left side of the page labeled “NOT A MEMBER? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER”.3. Enter a valid email address. This will be your username. If the email address is not already registered in the system, you will be brought to the registration page.4. Check the box to the left of “Check to confirm you are registering for a NEW account.”5. Complete the registration form.6. An email will be sent to the username address. Open the email and click the “Confirm” button.7. You will be brought to the Compquantum.com email confirmation page. Click “Continue” to proceed to the subscription payment portal (see Section 1.2 for plan options). A payment method is required to begin the trial period. Your account WILL NOT BE CHARGED FOR 7 DAYS. After the payment method is verified, you will be able to log into the system (on the LOGIN page).8. If you decide not to purchase a subscription, send an email to [email protected] before the end of the trial period. The subscription will be canceled and your card will not be charged. If a timely cancellation is not processed timely, the payment will be reimbursed.

Option 2

Follow instructions 1 through 6 for Option 1. Then send a check to:

InCode Research, L.L.C.230 Chancellor AvenueSaint Gabriel, LA 70776

Your free trial period will begin on receipt of your check. The check will not be presented for payment until after the 7 day trial period.

Alternatives

If neither option above works, please call 225-572-5180 or send an email to incode@compquantum to discuss possible alternative arrangements.


2 3

1 Registration and Subscriptions

1.3 Adding users to existing Multi-User and Firm plans

It is easy to add a new user to an existing Multi-User or Firm account.

1. Click on the “LOGIN-REGISTER-SUBSCRIBE” link on the right side of the site header.2. CLICK the button on the left side of the page labeled “NOT A MEMBER? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER”.3. Enter a valid email address. This will be your username. If the email address is not already registered in the system, you will be brought to the registration page.4. You are adding a user to an already existing account. Click on “GO HERE”.5. Enter an email address for another user already associated with this account (the original email address used to set up the account is the “account manager”).

1.4 View and edit user profile

User profile information can be viewed and/or updated from the login page (access by clicking on the “LOGIN-REGISTER-SUBSCRIBE” link on the right side of the header).

To view profile:Click on the “VIEW PROFILE” button on the left side of the page.

To update profile:Click on the “EDIT PROFILE” button on the left side of the page. Enter the password then retype the password for the logged-in user. Change fields that need to be updated. ONLY ENTER VALUES IN “New Password” and “Retype New Password” IF YOU INTEND TO CHANGE THE PASSWORD. OTHERWISE LEAVE THESE FIELDS BLANK.


1 Registration and Subscriptions

1.2 Subscription plans

There are three standard Compquantum.com subscription plans: (1) single-user; (2) multi-user; and (3) firm. On the single-user plan, one username is associated with the account. On the multi-user plan, up to four (4) usernames can be associated with the account. Firm plans allow up to ten (10) usernames to be associated with the account.

A username can be logged into the system on only one device at a time. A user signing in on the system while presently logged in on another device will automatically terminate the existing login.

Every user on a multi-user or firm plan must have a unique username. Single-user and multi-user plans can be purchased for monthly or annual terms. Monthly subscriptions can only be purchased online. Check payments are not accepted for monthly subscriptions. Monthly plans renew automatically with an automatic charge to your stored payment method. Firm plans can only be purchased as annual terms. Annual plans purchased online will also renew automatically.

Pricing

Single-User:$40 per month$300 per year

Multi-User (up to 4 users):$80 per month$600 per year

Firm (up to 10 users):$1,200 per year

If you would like to discuss alternative subscription options:

Call 225-572-5180or

Send email to [email protected]


4 5

2 Basic Case Presentation

2.2 Damage report

A damage summary describes details of plaintiff injury, total general damages, itemized general damages, loss of consortium awards and itemized special damages.

The total general damage CPI inflation adjustment is calculated on the fly using the date of judgment or appellate opinion, the present date and dollar amount. Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data is updated monthly.

No other research tool provides comparableease of access to damage data


McPherson v. Lake Area Med. Ctr., 99-1876 (La.App. 3 Cir. 05/24/00), 767 So.2d 102$275,000 general damage award adjusted for inflation using CPI data to $387,009

CPI inflation adjustment

2 Basic Case Presentation

A

A. Case Report Button: click here to generate a PDF case report (see Section 3.1)

B. View jurisdiction demographic data (see Section 3.2)

C. Info Buttons: click here to view a list of Compquantum.com cases for each judge/attorney (see Section 3.3)

D. Case references - view opinion excerpts, full text and links to/from cited/citing cases and statutes (see Section 3.4)

C

D

B

2.1 Case header At the top of every case presentation is a section providing general details and links to additional relevant information.


6 7

2 Basic Case Presentation2.3 Opinion text

Nearly every appellate case includes the full text of the court’s opinion. Trial court judgments include, when available, PDF documents relevant to plaintiff injuries, treatment and damages. Typical trial court documents include reasons for judgment, joint pretrial order, pre- and post-trial memoranda and JNOV motions. Cases reported in the media may also include copies of news articles.

Quantum evaluated and verified in one place


3 Additional Case Tools

To help researchers locate more information, the basic case presentation has links to supplemental information. Demographic data, lists of additional cases involving the judges and attorneys, opinion excerpts, explanatory notes and quick reference to some citing and cited opinions/statutes are included in the Case Header (see Section 2.1).

3.1 Case report

→Select the CaseReport buttonto access the

contents menu andgenerate a

downloadable PDF report

Case ReportContents Menu

Contents menu shown with all options selected. If the case has associated plaintiff quantum data, that information will be included in the report automatically.

The “Report Prepared For” option defaults to the subscribed user. Enter an alternative name (“Your Client”) to override the default behavior.

Additional PDF documents associated with this case will be appended to the generated report if the “Opinion Text” option is selected.

The report can be saved on the user’s computer/device, emailed to any address. A link to the temporary file can be sent by text message

A sample Case Report is attached as Appendix A.


8 9


3.2 Parish details

Compquantum.com provides demographic data for all 64 Louisiana parishes. State court cases are associated with the parish of the trial court. An “info” link to the right of the parish name brings up a map of Louisiana with the parish clearly marked. Other information includes the total population, percentage of white, African-American and Hispanic residents using 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data, Presidential election voting percentages, educational attainment and family income data.



3.2.1 Parish details - population

The population of all 64 plotted to scale using 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data can be viewed by clicking the “Total pop.” link in the population statistics box.

3.2.2 Parish details - education The header of the Educational Attainment table is a link to a plot of the parish educational attainment statistics plotted against the other 63 parishes. The easiest way to understand this plot is to recognize that taller bars on the left indicate lower educational attainment and taller bars to the right indicate higher educational attainment compared to the other parishes. Note, these are not absolute numbers. They are relative values. For example, the 5.9% of the population in Rapides Parish with an associate’s degree is one of the highest in the state as a percentage of the total population. The total number of Rapides Parish residents with an associates degree is still less than one-half the total number of Rapides Parish residents with a bachelor’s degree. The graph provides a snapshot of how an Rapides Parish jury venire likely would compare to the other parishes in terms of educational attainment. In Rapides Parish, a representative jury venire would have fewer members with lower educational attainment and more members with higher educational attainment than most other parishes.


10 11

3 Additional Case Tools3.2.3 Parish details - family income

The header of the Family Income table is a link to a plot of the parish family income statistics plotted against the other 63 parishes. Analytically, it is very similar to the educational attainment plot (see Section 3.2.2). Again, these are not absolute numbers. They are relative rankings as a percentage of the total population compared to the other parishes. From the Rapides Parish income plot, we can see that a venire will likely be made up of potential jurors in proportions very near the state median across the scale, except that fewer members of the venire will have an annual family income less than $10,000 per year.


3 Additional Case Tools3.3 Judge and attorney case lists

The “info” links to the right of the case judge and attorney names bring up lists of additional cases in the Compquantum.com database associated with that judge/attorney. The judge lists also indicate whether the judge was the opinion author or dissented from the majority opinion. The cases are ordered chronologically beginning with the most recent.

The image does not include the complete list of cases for Judge Sylvia Cooks

Judge List

Attorney List


12 13


3.4 Case references

Buttons across the bottom of the case header link to additional case specific presentations. The case text or related PDF documents present when the case is first loaded onscreen. The “Opinion” button will return the case opinion after other selections have replaced it onscreen. (If the case is from a trial court, the button reads “Trial Documents”).

Other buttons include Case Notes, Citing Cases, Cited Cases and Cited Statutes. The Case Notes usually consists of excerpts from the opinion specific to plaintiff injuries, treatment and general damage assessment. For non-quantum cases or trial court judgment, the summary will usually consist of a brief explanation of the key relevance of the case for inclusion in the Compquantum.com database. Not all cited cases and statutes from the opinion are listed. Where a case is cited for quantum purposes, a reference is generally included. The legal issue for which the appellate court cited the case or statute is included.

3.4.1 Case references - case notesSample Case Notes

3.4.2 Case references - citing cases


3.4.3 Case references - cited cases


3.4.4 Case references - cited statutes

4 The Home Page


The home page is the main portal to all Compquantum.com subscription and free services. On this page you will find the following:

Quantum Search - a subscription service - see Section 5Case Search - a subscription service - see Section 6Interest Calculation - a subscription service - see Section 7Brief Processor - this is a subscription service under development - see Section 8Courts & Demographics - a free service - see Section 9Louisiana Statutes - a subscription service - see Section 10Issue Reference - a subscription service - see Section 11Expert Reference - a subscription service - see Section 12Physician Reference - a subscription service - see Section 13Louisiana Law Blog (“LAw Blog”) - a free service - see Section 14Legal News - a free service (recently posted cases can be viewed free of charge)Law Links - Links to other websites and blogs. Here users can quickly access the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Court local rules, Louisiana statutes, law blogs, legal trade association websites, Louisiana appellate court websites and Louisiana newspaper websites.

14 15© 2017 InCode Research, L.L.C.

5 Quantum Search

Designing and implementing quantum search algorithms was a technical challenge. The solutions incorporated into this site are the result of years of repetitive thought and revision. The result is a tool that yields better results faster.

There are two principal options for conducting quantum research. The most accurate and flexible approach is to employ a traditional search by injury method using Compquantum.com’s unique single injury, two injury and three or more injury search algorithms. The alternative approach, searching body part, treatment and injury description tags, can lead to very specific results where a discrete - especially rare - anatomical part, treatment or injury is involved.

The first search method concept is simple. General damage values are associated with a specific injury or set of injuries. Throughout this guide, when I refer to “injury,” remember that this may include a physical injury or non-physical harm for which general damages are recoverable. Where general damages are awarded for a single principal injury, that award becomes a single injury item in the database and will only respond to a single injury search. If the award covers two principal injuries, it is saved as a two injury item and will only respond to a two injury search. Likewise, an award compensating for three or more injuries is saved as a three injury item and only responds to three injury searches.

A principal injury is one that reasonably should be expected to have contributed a non-trivial amount to the damage award. Put another way, if the damage award likely would not have changed appreciably without the injury, then it was not a principal injury. An injury may be principal in one context, but not in another. For example, a minor ankle sprain on its own would be the principal injury of a damage award, but probably would not be a principal injury as part of a damage award also covering a fractured femur. What qualifies as a principal injury is a case specific (and sometimes subjective) judgment.

The single category is often obvious. An award based on one specific harm incurred by the plaintiff, be it a broken arm, herniated cervical disc or compensable mental anguish arising from a breach of contract, is a single injury. Other times, single injury general damage awards are categorized that way through the process of deliberation discussed below for two and three injury scenarios.

Two and three injury awards generally reflect substantial judgment calls. Analytically, the threshold task calls for deciding what injury or injuries made a measurable difference when the trial judge or jury assigned a dollar amount for the plaintiff’s loss. This is complicated by the fact that jury deliberations are unknowable and the end result has often been filtered through an appellate review. So, for appellate cases, it is generally a process of interpreting what the opinion says about the injuries in relation to the general damage award.

For users of Compquantum.com it is important to understand that combining serious and trivial injuries in a multi-injury search will probably yield no results. There are, for example, no two injury damage awards for cervical fusion and a sprained ankle. On the other hand, although they contribute substantially different amounts to the total award, there are results for cervical fusion and lumbar aggravation successfully treated with ESIs.

5.1 Quantum - A comment on methodology

5 Quantum Search

5.2.1 Quantum - Search by injury help

To the right of the screen on the quantum search page is a dropdown box. Use this box to display brief summaries of the injury categories as an aide for deciding what to search. Because this site is constantly in development and some categories overlap, the summaries vary in precision, but are a helpful guide with many of the ambiguous options.

One way the site accounts for ambiguity is to cross-reference marginal injuries in multiple categories. For example, a significant cervical herniation treated with limited success by ESIs on a plaintiff who is not considered a surgical candidate due to health reasons may be listed under both the “Cervical moderate” and “Cervical major” injury categories. The uncertainty in this example comes from the fact that “Cervical major” injuries are generally limited to surgical cases. The actual treatment for this plaintiff falls clearly in the moderate category, but a healthier plaintiff may have had surgery, or at least have been recommended for surgery.


5.2 Quantum - Search by injury

5.2.2 Quantum - Single injury search

Select this option to search for damage awards associated with a single principal injury.

It is also important to remember that the results are associated with damage awards, not plaintiffs. A plaintiff awarded damages for cervical fusion and a separate damage award for a sprained ankle will have two single injury entries in the database.

When conducting quantum research, remember that there is as much art as science in the underlying data. Be flexible with queries and never assume that a single approach is best if the damage issue is not very narrow and clearly defined.

16 17

5 Quantum Search

5.2.3 Quantum - Two injury searches

Select this option to search for damage awards associated with two principal injuries. See Section 5.1 for a definition of “principal injury.”

Note that the default for “Injury selection 2” is “Any second injury.” Do not overlook the importance of this option. It adds tremendous adaptability to the quantum search results. An unusual combination of two injuries may yield few, or even zero results, but there may be a damage award in the system that includes one of the two injuries and a second that combined with the first is comparatively similar to the specific search.

It is also recommended that single injury scenarios be run as a two (and three) injury search leaving the additional selection(s) generic. This helps avoid the problem of overlooking a relevant case because a marginally significant second principal injury was included along with a relatively dominant first principal injury.

Two injury searches will not return any damage awards associated with one principal injury. Also, two injury searches will not return any damage awards associated with three or more principal injuries.


5.2.4 Quantum - Three injury searches

Select this option to search for damage awards associated with three or more principal injuries. See Section 5.1 for a definition of “principal injury.”

As with two injury searches, the additional injury selections default to generic options. See the discussion above in Section 5.2.3 for search recommendations. The suggestion regarding single injury searches also applies to running two injury searches in the three injury option leaving the final selection generic.

Many injuries are frequently diagnosed in combination. The most common and obvious example is spine soft-tissue complaints. There is no consistent pattern of courts treating combined cervical, thoracic and/or lumbar strain injuries as separate and distinct for quantum evaluation purposes. Another example would be a cervical soft-tissue injury with complaints of shoulder pain. Unless there is a clear distinction described by the court between two or more commonly associated injuries, they are generally treated as a single injury in the database. However, the search algorithm makes an exception from the usual rule and will also return these “single injury” damage awards as matching results for two or three injury searches for the specific complaints.

For example, a damage award for cervical and lumbar soft-tissue complaints is likely categorized as a single injury with cross-references for both “Cervical soft tissue” and “Lumbar soft tissue” injuries. A single injury search for “Cervical soft tissue” will return this damage award. A single injury search for “Lumbar soft tissue” will also return this damage award. A two injury search for “Cervical soft tissue” and “Lumbar soft tissue” will also return this damage award, but a two injury search for “Cervical soft tissue” and anything else, including a generic second injury, will not return this damage award.

5.2.5 Quantum - A note on commonly associated injuries

5 Quantum Search

5.3 Quantum - Search by tag

Sometimes quantum searches are best performed by reference to a specific body part, treatment or injury description/diagnosis. For example, if the goal is to quickly identify lateral malleolus injuries, it is better to search for damage awards tagged “Ankle - lateral malleolus” than it is to wade through pages of ankle injuries looking for that tag. This option is especially useful to help locate unusual medical terms associated with a damage award.

Most damage awards have associated tags. There are three types of tags: (1) body part tags; (2) treatment tags; and (3) injury description tags. Some tags are very common (i.e. “Cervical”) and not much help for search purposes. Other tags (i.e. “Fracture - face - LeFort Type 3”) are exceptionally useful for finding the rare damage award associated with that diagnosis.

Tag searches can become quite complicated. It is best to keep them simple. However, if a very specific combination of body part, treatment and/or description is desired, multiple tags can be combined. The system allows selection of up to three tags from each category. Any damage award with tags matching at least one selection from each category will be returned in the result. Thus, a search for tags “Cervical - C6-7”, “Surgery - Fusion” and “Intevertebral disc - cervical herniation” will return many matches. On the other hand, a search for “Ankle” and “Intevertebral disc - cervical herniation” will not return any results.


18 19

5.4 Quantum - Loss of Consortium

5 Quantum Search

At the bottom of the Quantum search screen is an option to search for loss of consortium awards. The search requires selection of a family relationship (“Wife”, “Husband”, “Mother”, etc.) and a trial or appellate court.


6 Case Search There are several existing options and methods under development for direct case searches in Compquantum.com. Existing options include citation, case name, case type, judge last name, attorney last name, and date searches.

After any case search on the Compquantum.com database that fails to locate a match, an option is presented to search Fastcase® using a citation to the So.2d, So.3d, F.2d, F.3d or U.S. reporter series

6.1 Search by Citation Citation searches can be conducted on the Compquantum.com database or directly in Fastcase®


The users previous 10 quantum searches (only search by injury) are saved automatically and can be accessed from a link at the top of the quantum search page.

5.5 Quantum Search History

20 21

6 Case Search

6.3.2 Search by judge name

The “Search by judge name” field accepts a last name. All judges whose last name matches the user entry are displayed.

Select a judge from the available options and a list of cases associated with that judge is then presented onscreen.

→

↓


6 Case Search

A case name search requires a full plaintiff name and/or full defendant name. By “full” plaintiff name, what is required is the complete first name appearing to the left of the “v”. So, for example, to search for Smith v. Jones, enter “Smith”; to search for J.M. v. Avoyelles Parish Sch. Bd., enter “J.M.”; to search for American Motorist Ins. Co. v. American Rent-All, Inc., enter “American”, “American Motorist”., “American Motorist Ins.”, or “American Motorist Ins. Co.”.

6.2 Search by Case Name

6.3 Alternative case search methods

6.3.1 Search by case type Most cases include case type tag(s) displayed in the Case Header (see Section 2.1). Some of the case type tags are searchable under the “Search by case type” option. Not all case types are searchable. For example “MVA” is not searchable because of the vast number of cases marked with this tag. However, “MVA - 18 wheeler/tour bus” and “MVA - Pedestrian” are searchable.

Keep in mind that case tags have not yet been added to every case. For most case types, there are additional cases in the Compquantum.com database that match, but have not been tagged. All new cases added to the system are tagged. Older cases are being updated regularly.


22 23

6 Case Search6.4 Date Search

The date search option returns a list of Compquantum.com cases for the selected year and month.


6.5 Saved CasesStill in development, CompQuantum.com now allows users to save cases for future reference. The feature includes a user comment field to help identify the significance of each saved case. The comment then becomes part of the case note for the user.

6 Case Search6.3.3 Search by attorney name

The “Search by attorney name” field accepts a last name. All attorneys whose last name matches the user entry are displayed.

Select an attorney form the available options and a list of cases associated with that attorney is then presented on-screen.

→

↓

6.3.4 Search for word or phrase

The search by word or phrase option is not yet set up. When complete, this option will search case opinions for matches. It will not search PDF documents associated with a case.

The word option will be released soon. It will allow users to find any opinion that includes the searched word.


24 25

7 Interest Calculation

Compquantum.com includes a judicial interest calculator.


The calculator computes simple interest based on the total number of days from the Begin Date to the End Date with the Begin Date being 0. The statutory judicial interest rate for each year falling within the period is multiplied by the Principal Amount and by the decimal value of the total days within the period for that year divided by the total days for that year (either 365 or 366). The interest calculated for each year falling within the period is added to yield a total interest calculation.

An interest calculation report is displayed on screen.

Click the Interest Report button to obtain a PDF report that can be downloaded or delivered by email. An example interest calculation report is attached as Appendix B. →


6 Case SearchThe case library is accessible at the top of the Case Search page.

The Case Notes display includes saved notes and comments.

When the In Case Brief Processor screen is open (see Section 8.1), a button is available to append user comments directly into a document.

26 27

8 Brief Processor8.1 Brief Processor Access Portals

Brief Processor main page

Brief Processor In Case access

The Brief Processor is accessible as a full screen text editing application, or as a window on a case presentation screen.

The main screen is accessible from the home page through the subscription services Brief Processor button.

Click the “In Case” button to access from the case presentation.

8 Brief Processor8.2 Brief Processor Features

The Brief Processor automates legal document creation with tools for creating captions, built-in templates, one-click insertion for statements of law (with citation) and same screen case law access using case reporter citations from any U.S. jurisdiction courtesy of Fastcase©.


28 29

10 Louisiana Statutes

Compquantum.com provides the text of many statutes (Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Evidence and Revised Statutes) relevant to cases featured on the site. It is not comprehensive as the subject of most statutes is beyond the scope of the Compquantum.com service. It is, however, expansive in terms of defining what is relevant.

Two options are provided to assist the user whose memory for citations is challenged like mine. One brings up a list of links to statutes associated with major Louisiana acts (the Direct Action statute, the Medical Malpractice Act, etc.). The second provides a list of statutes associated by subject.


9 Courts & Demographics

The Courts & Demographics feature is a free service of Compquantum.com. Feel free to share the link to this page (https://compquantum.com/demography/).

For all 64 Louisiana parishes, the features discussed in Section 3.2 are available on this page. In addition, users can access the trial courts located in each parish for a list of current and former judges and Compquantum.com cases associated with each. This page also provides links to access the local rules for all 42 judicial district courts and a table of jurisdictional limits for Louisiana’s city and parish courts.


30 31© 2017 InCode Research, L.L.C.

11 Issue Reference 11 Issue Reference


The issue reference is a collection of excerpts from appellate opinions stating legal principles. This is a quick reference library useful for briefs and jury instructions. The issue reference will work in tandem with Compquantum.com’s Brief Processor (see Section 8).

Coverage remains limited, but the issue reference covers many common needs and is expanding quickly. In addition to greater breadth of coverage, depth is important too. A goal is to have excerpts from the Louisiana Supreme Court and all intermediate appellate courts cover the most commonly discussed legal principles in personal injury litigation.

12 Expert Reference

Compquantum.com’s expert witness directory includes more than 500 experts in more than 150 areas of expertise. Select an expertise and a list of experts in that field is presented onscreen. Selection from the list of experts, returns a list of Compquantum.com cases in which the expert was identified by name.

If the name appears in blue or purple, it serves as a link to another website associated with that expert.

→Listed cases can be accessed in Compquantum.com. Case names are links to the case presentations.

32 33

13 Physician Reference


The Physician Reference is similar to the Expert Reference. Search for health care providers by practice specialty or name. Notwithstanding the label, this directory includes some facilities, as well as chiropractors, physical therapists and other non-MD providers.

Search by provider nameor specialty

→

→

To obtain a list of cases associated with that provider

→

→

14 Louisiana Law Blog The LAw Blog is my indulgence. It is another free service of Compquantum.com. Please share the link to this page (https://compquantum.com/blog/).

Missing from the brief biography in the introduction is reference to my undergraduate studies at the University of Colorado as a journalism major. This blog is the expression of a long held passion for news and information. Although I never completed the journalism degree, I often thought getting away from that endeavor was regrettable.

Maintaining this site is an every day effort. Keeping current on quantum developments tends to force me into staying current on all issues relevant to personal injury law in Louisiana. The blog is a gumbo where everything interesting gets thrown into the mix, whether it has anything to do with quantum or not - more often not.

The blog tends toward a more editorial approach than other Compquantum.com services. Nevertheless, conveying accurate, reliable, helpful information is the only agenda. I invite your views, but have, so far, opted out of posting comments. If you have a response to anything you see on the blog, or want to offer your own commentary for possible posting, please send to [email protected]. I am not jealous of good ideas. If we use Compquantum.com as your voice to the community, your contribution will be acknowledged.


Compquantum.com is a service of InCode Research, L.L.C.230 Chancellor Ave.


APPENDIX

A

Case Report generated for Appendix A on Jan 7, 2017

Copyright InCode Research, L.L.C. (2017), all rights reserved

Cortez v. Zurich Ins. Co., 98-2059 (First Circuit 12/28/1999), 752So.2d 957

Jury Trial Case Type: Parking lot, Premises Liability, Products Liability, Merchant Liability, JNOV/New Trial, Quantum,

Trial Court: 21st JDC Parish: Tangipahoa

Judges: Attorneys:

Wayne Ray Chutz (Trial Judge) Waldon Michael Hingle Plaintiff

Melvin A. Shortess Ronald J. Favre Plaintiff

Randolph Parro Michael Andrew Sevante Plaintiff

James E. Kuhn (App. Op. Author) Charles A. Boggs Defense (appellant)

Anne Elizabeth Medo Defense (appellant)

Alton B. Lewis Defense (appellant)

Experts:

Mehdy SabbaghianPh.D Mechanical Engineer Fred Vanderbrook Mechanical Engineer Ewing Berkley Traughaber Structural engineer Ivan V. Pieratt Structural engineer George Burke Sign fabrication and design

http://www.lasc.org/rules/dist.ct/21stJDCAppendices.PDF

http://vecoconsulting.com/our-engineers/

Section Links

Plaintiff Damage Summary

Map

Parish Income Data

Cortez v. Zurich Ins. Co. Opinion Text

Plaintiff Damage Summary

Cortez, Elizabeth

$215,000 (CPI inflation adjusted: $308,323)

Primary Injury:

• Herniated C4-5 disk treated with ACDFPart tags: C4-5,Treatment tags: Surgery (ACDF),Description tags: Cervical disc herniation,Physicians/Health Care Providers:

◦ John D. Jackson : treating surgeon (Neurosurgeon)◦ Kenneth N. Adatto : treating health care provider (Orthopedic

surgeon)◦ Maria A. Palmer : treating health care provider (Neurologist)

Secondary Injury:

• Accident related post-traumatic stress disorder - additional post-accidentstressors included, first, death of counsin and cousin's son, folloed by death ofhusbandPart tags: Mental/psychological,Treatment tags: Psychiatric care,Description tags: PTSD/traumatic neurosis,Physicians/Health Care Providers:

◦ James B, Denney : Psychiatrist◦ Douglas W. Stewart : Psychiatrist

Itemized general damagesPain and suffering $120,000.00

Mental anguish $20,000.00

Loss of enjoyment of life $75,000.00

Special DamagesPast medical expenses $41,000.00

Return to Top

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/8519/1/C4-C5-Bulging-Disc.html

http://www.spine-health.com/treatment/back-surgery/acdf-anterior-cervical-discectomy-and-fusion

http://www.spine-health.com/treatment/back-surgery/acdf-anterior-cervical-discectomy-and-fusion

https://www.spine-health.com/conditions/herniated-disc/cervical-herniated-disc-symptoms-and-treatment-options

http://www.wellness.com/dir/2176422/neurosurgeon/la/new-orleans/john-jackson-john-d-jackson-neurolog

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/index.shtml


Return to Top

Family Income - 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-YearEstimates

less than$10,000

$10,000-$14,999

$15,000-$24,999

$25,000-$34,999

$35,000-$49,999

$50,000-$74,999

$75,000-$99,999

$100,000-$149,999

$150,000-$199,999

morethan

$200,000

08.8% 04.4% 11.6% 11.2% 13.0% 19.4% 13.4% 12.4% 03.3% 02.5%

Return to Top

CompQuantum.com - Object Optimized Legal ResearchA Service of InCode Research, L.L.C.

Page 957

752 So.2d 957

Elizabeth CORTEZ and Murphy Cortez, Jr.v.

ZURICH INSURANCE CO., R & M Foods, Inc., Noel Poirier, et al.

No. 98 CA 2059.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

December 28, 1999.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 2000.

Page 958

Michael Hingle, Ronald J. Favre, Michael A. Sevante, Hammond, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Elizabeth Cortez.

Charles A. Boggs, Anne E. Medo, New Orleans, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant Genlyte Group, Inc.

Alton B. Lewis, Hammond, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants Zurich Insurance Co., R & M Foods, Inc., and SuperValu Stores, Inc.

BEFORE: SHORTESS, PARRO, AND KUHN, JJ.

KUHN, Judge.

This appeal involves a personal injury suit in which plaintiff, Elizabeth Cortez,1 filed suit seeking to recoverdamages for injuries allegedly sustained when a light pole fell on the roof of her car. The defendants involved in thisappeal are: Genlyte Group Incorporated ("Genlyte"), formerly d/b/a Wide-Lite International Corporation ("Wide-Lite"),the manufacturer of the light pole; R & M Foods, Inc. ("R & M"), the owner/operator of a retail grocery store, which

operated under the franchise name of Sunflower Foods, Inc. ("Sunflower");2 and Zurich Insurance

Page 959

Company ("Zurich"), the liability insurer of R & M. Channel Shopping Center Partnership ("Channel Shopping

Center"),3 Noel Poirier, and Gary Poirier, the owners/lessors of the shopping center premises, were initially named as

defendants but were dismissed from the suit prior to trial.4

After a jury trial, a judgment was signed awarding damages in favor of plaintiff in accordance with the juryverdict, which allocated fault among Genlyte, R & M, and Channel Shopping Center. Based on its conclusion that areallocation of fault was necessary, the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV"). Cortezand Genlyte have appealed, and R & M and Zurich have answered the appeal. The issues raised are: whether the trialcourt erred in granting the JNOV; whether the trial court (or, alternatively, the jury) erred in assessing fault to R & M;and whether the jury's award of damages is supported by the record. We reverse the JNOV and reinstate the originaljudgment based on the jury verdict.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On the morning of March 1, 1991, Mrs. Cortez drove to the Sunflower store located within the Channel ShoppingCenter in Hammond, Louisiana. When she arrived at the shopping center, the weather conditions were windy andraining. A line of severe thunderstorms passed through the Hammond area that morning with winds estimated at sixtyto seventy miles per hour. After she parked her car in the parking lot of the shopping center and while she was stillsitting in the driver's seat of her car, she heard a popping noise and saw a light pole falling toward her car. It struckthe roof of her car and punctured a hole in the top of the roof over the back passenger seat. Cortez testified that due tothe impact of the pole, the roof of the car struck her on the top of her head. Cortez stated that she felt pain right afterthe impact.

Although Cortez was not sure whether it was safe to leave her car, she forced her door open and went into theSunflower store. She testified that she was scared, terrified, and shaking. She called her husband, who arrived with

other family members about a half-hour later to pick her up. Upon leaving the Sunflower store, she went directly to theemergency room, where she complained of head and neck injuries and received treatment.

The Channel Shopping Center light pole which fell on Cortez's car was a forty-foot tall pole that was designed andmanufactured by Genlyte, who formerly did business as Wide-Lite. The construction of the pole consisted of threeupright aluminum pipes (or members) in a tripod design, joined by welded castings at intervals along its length. Thethree upright pipes were threaded into a cast aluminum base. According to Wide-Lite specifications, this particulartype of pole, which was designed for use with a Mercury "4000" fixture or four 1000-watt "Wide-Lite" mercury vaporfloodlights, was capable of withstanding winds of up to 100 miles per hour in velocity. When the Channel ShoppingCenter was built in the mid-1960's, two of these poles were installed in the shopping center parking lot, with aMercury "4000" light fixture at the top of each pole.

Some time prior to the accident, the owners of the shopping center replaced the original Mercury "4000" fixtureon each pole with a different set of fixtures. During the early 1970's, R & M began operating the Sunflower store.According to the

Page 960

testimony of Mr. Richard C. Martin, one of the owners of R & M, and Mr. Charles D. Shoemake, an electrical contractoremployed by R & M, the original fixtures had been replaced prior to the time that R & M began operating the store. Atthat time, each pole had four light fixtures at the top. During May of 1990, Martin asked Shoemake to suggest methodsto provide additional lighting for the parking lot. One of Shoemake's suggestions was implemented by Shoemake on R& M's behalf. It involved installing a bracket which held three additional light fixtures weighing a total of one hundredpounds about twenty to twenty-five feet above ground on the pole which ultimately fell on Cortez's car.

From the early 1970's when R & M began operating the Sunflower store, it instituted the practice of displayingseveral decorative banners/streamers of multicolored triangular pennants in a V-shaped fashion across the parking lot.R & M installed eighteen flags on poles evenly spaced across the top of the store front. One end of each banner wastied to one of the flagpoles on top of the store and the other end of the banner was tied to the light pole in the parkinglot. The testimony of the store employees and store representatives varied regarding the number of banners whichtypically had been tied to the light pole, with the number varying from eight to eighteen. The banners were tied at aheight of about fourteen to seventeen feet above the ground. The length of the banners varied from one hundred feetto one hundred thirty-two feet, depending on the distance from each flag to the pole. The banners had been tied onlyto the light pole in question, which fell on Cortez's car. The other light pole in the parking lot had not been used in thisfashion.

During the trial, plaintiff offered testimony suggesting that several factors, including the defective constructionand design of the pole, the installation of the additional lights on the pole, and the attachment of the banners to thepole by R & M, contributed to the light pole's failure. R & M offered testimony suggesting that the light pole wasdefective in design and manufacture, and that these defects were the sole cause of the failure of the pole. Thetestimony offered by Genlyte supported a conclusion that the pulling force of the banners combined with the force ofthe wind was the cause of the pole failure. The parties stipulated during trial that the light poles in the shoppingcenter parking lot were under the care, custody and control of the shopping center owners, Channel Shopping Center,Noel Poirier, and Gary Poirier.

The jury found that: 1) Cortez was injured on March 1, 1991; 2) her injury was not caused by an act of God; and3) R & M/Sunflower, Genlyte, and Channel Shopping Center were each at fault in causing Cortez's injury. Inapportioning the percentages of fault, the jury assigned ten percent to R & M/Sunflower, twenty percent to Genlyte,and seventy percent to Channel Shopping Center. The jury assessed damages totaling $260,000.00.

Based on the jury verdict, the trial court signed a judgment, dated January 24, 1997, in favor of Cortez andagainst R & M, Sunflower, and Zurich in the amount of $26,000.00, and in favor of Cortez and against Genlyte in theamount of $52,-000.00. Plaintiff responded by filing a motion for a new trial or in the alternative, a JNOV. On January20, 1998, the trial court signed a JNOV which set aside the jury's allocation of fault and reallocated fault as follows: tenpercent to R & M/Sunflower, ninety percent to Genlyte, and zero percent to Channel Shopping Center. Genlyte andCortez appealed the January 24, 1997, and January 20, 1998 judgments. R & M and Zurich answered the appeal.

On appeal, Genlyte argues that the trial court erred in granting the JNOV and that the jury's verdict allocatingfault should be reinstated. Alternatively, Genlyte urges that in granting the JNOV, the trial court erred by notreallocating a greater portion

Page 961

of fault to R & M/Sunflower. Genlyte also contends that the damages awarded to plaintiff should be reduced becauseshe did not prove that the incident caused extensive damages.

Although Cortez appealed from both judgments below, on appeal, she asks only that the January 20, 1998judgment be affirmed. She submits the trial court did not err in granting the JNOV, and that the jury's award ofdamages was appropriate.

In its answer, R & M urges it has been aggrieved by the jury's and the trial court's action of assessing ten percentof the fault to R & M. It asserts no fault should have been assessed to R & M and prays that the judgment be modifiedaccordingly.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Legal Principles

1. Strict Liability

Louisiana Civil Code article 2317 provides, in pertinent part, "We are responsible, not only for the damage

occasioned by our own act, but for that which is caused by ... the things which we have in our custody."5 Strict liabilityis liability without personal fault which is based upon the status as owner or custodian. Celestine v. Union Oil Co. ofCalifornia, 94-1868, pp. 6-7 (La.4/10/95), 652 So.2d 1299, 1303. When harm results from the defect of a thing whichcreates an unreasonable risk of harm to others, a person legally responsible for the supervision, care, or guardianshipof the thing may be held liable for the damage caused, despite the fact that no personal negligent act or inattention onthe part of that person is proved. Simeon v. Doe, 618 So.2d 848, 851 (La.1993).

Under a strict liability theory, plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) the property which caused the damage wasin the custody of the defendant; (2) the property was defective because it had a condition that created an unreasonablerisk of harm to persons on the premises; and (3) the defect in the property was a cause-infact of the resulting injury. See Oster v. Dep't of Transp. & Dev., State of Louisiana, 582 So.2d 1285, 1288 (La.1991); Cazes v. Parish of West BatonRouge, 97-2824, p.3 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/30/98), 744 So.2d 54. Once the injured person has met this burden, the owneror guardian responsible for the defective thing can escape liability only if he shows the harm was caused by the fault ofthe victim, by the fault of a third person, or by an irresistible force. Simeon v. Doe, 618 So.2d at 851, Halphen v. Johns—Manville Sales Corp., 484 So.2d 110, 116 (La.1986); Loescher v. Parr, 324 So.2d 441 (La.1975).

2. Products Liability

The Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) establishes the exclusive theories of recovery against manufacturersfor damage caused by their products. Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2800.54 reads:

A. The manufacturer of a product shall be liable to a claimant for damage proximately caused by a characteristicof the product that renders the product unreasonably dangerous when such damage arose from a reasonablyanticipated use of the product by the claimant or another person or entity.

B. A product is unreasonably dangerous if and only if:

(1) The product is unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition

...;

(2) The product is unreasonably dangerous in design . ..;

Page 962

(3) The product is unreasonably dangerous because an adequate warning about the product has not beenprovided. ..; or

(4) The product is unreasonably dangerous because it does not conform to an express warranty of themanufacturer about the product . . . .

C. The characteristic of the product that renders it unreasonably dangerous... must exist at the time the productleft the control of its manufacturer .. . or result from a reasonably anticipated alteration or modification of the product.

D. The claimant has the burden of proving the elements of Subsections A, B and C of this Section.

3. Duty of a Merchant/Store Operator

In general, store owners owe a duty to patrons to take reasonable care for their safety, although they are not theinsurer of the patron's safety. The extent of this duty, though limited, is an evolving responsibility dependent on theexistence of a particular risk, the likelihood that it will be encountered by patrons, the feasibility and reasonablenessof requiring storekeepers to guard against it, and certain policy considerations which might move a tribunal to find thestorekeeper liable. But the courts have said proprietors of public places have a duty to protect patrons from injuriescaused by third parties only when it is within their power to do so. Whether a risk is within the ambit of the dutygenerally owed by storekeepers requires the court to consider the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Parish v. L.M. Daigle Oil Co., Inc., 98-1716 (La.App. 3d Cir. 6/23/99), 742 So.2d 18, writ denied, 99-1417 (La.9/3/99), 747 So.2d 551.

4. Standards of Review

a. Manifest Error

A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's or a jury's finding of fact in the absence of "manifest error" orunless it is "clearly wrong." Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). In order to reverse a factfinder's determinations,the appellate court must find from the record that: 1) a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of thetrial court, and 2) the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). See Mart v. Hill, 505So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987).

This test dictates that a reviewing court must do more than simply review the record for some evidence whichsupports or controverts the trial court's finding. The reviewing court must review the record in its entirety to

https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=3wxMZPvCSQrv6j0tWH21LHMzOrplUYpgOmnZxjie%2bkcoPdDGuUJfLOimiOQYcE0dINv7R1dqk1ctdU7X%2bhActduWw%2flhh7QAnA8VNcgdgoUEfxCbC5yiAXHTOg3ypGJAucpDYnUN2sQOkTuCIN5By31Z2eC67zSfMNzk2k1qFsY%3d&ECF=Simeon+v.+Doe%2c++618+So.2d+848

https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=3wxMZPvCSQrv6j0tWH21LHMzOrplUYpgOmnZxjie%2bkcoPdDGuUJfLOimiOQYcE0dINv7R1dqk1ctdU7X%2bhActduWw%2flhh7QAnA8VNcgdgoUEfxCbC5yiAXHTOg3ypGJAucpDYnUN2sQOkTuCIN5By31Z2eC67zSfMNzk2k1qFsY%3d&ECF=Simeon+v.+Doe%2c++618+So.2d+848

https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=3wxMZPvCSQrv6j0tWH21LHMzOrplUYpgOmnZxjie%2bkcoPdDGuUJfLOimiOQYcE0dINv7R1dqk1ctdU7X%2bhActduWw%2flhh7QAnA8VNcgdgoUEfxCbC5yiAXHTOg3ypGJAucpDYnUN2sQOkTuCIN5By31Z2eC67zSfMNzk2k1qFsY%3d&ECF=See+Oster+v.+Dep%27t+of+Transp.+%26+Dev.%2c+State+of+Louisiana%2c++582+So.2d+1285



https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=3wxMZPvCSQrv6j0tWH21LHMzOrplUYpgOmnZxjie%2bkcoPdDGuUJfLOimiOQYcE0dINv7R1dqk1ctdU7X%2bhActduWw%2flhh7QAnA8VNcgdgoUEfxCbC5yiAXHTOg3ypGJAucpDYnUN2sQOkTuCIN5By31Z2eC67zSfMNzk2k1qFsY%3d&ECF=484+So.2d+110



determine whether the trial court's finding was clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Nevertheless, the issue to beresolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder'sconclusion was a reasonable one. Stobart v. State, Through Dep't of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993).Even though an appellate court may feel its own evaluations and inferences are more reasonable than the factfinder's,reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review whereconflict exists in the testimony. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d at 844; Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882. Where there are twopermissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearlywrong. Stobart, 617 So.2d at 883.

b. Abuse of Discretion

The trier of fact is given much discretion in the assessment of damages. La.C.C. art. 2324.1 Upon appellatereview, damage awards will be disturbed only when there has been a clear abuse of that discretion. Theriot v. AllstateIns. Co., 625 So.2d 1337, 1340 (La.1993). The abuse of discretion standard of review requires an inquiry as to whetherthe award for the particular injuries and their effects on the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances is aclear abuse of the much discretion of the trier of fact. A comparison of other awards in other cases is appropriate

Page 963

only after the appellate court finds such abuse of discretion. Then it is proper to resort to prior awards only for thepurpose of determining the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion. Youn v. MaritimeOverseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260-1261 (La. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114, 114 S.Ct. 1059, 127 L.Ed.2d 379(1994).

B. Summary of Trial Testimony

Dr. Mehdy Sabbaghian, a mechanical engineer with expertise in stress failures and design, testified that thefailure of the pole was due to the tension of the banners pulling on the pole. He explained that the banners attached tothe pole created a force which pulled the pole toward the building. When this pulling force was combined with thehigh wind load on the banners and the pole, the pole was brought to its breaking point. Sabbaghian found that theupright member of the pole which was furthest from the store failed first as a result of the tension. At that point, thebanners and wind load pulled the other two members, which broke at the base and fell toward the store. He concludedthat the failure was more than likely not due to fatigue but rather due to tension.

Sabbaghian stated that when the wind blew in any direction, two of the four fixtures on the top of the pole werecatching the thrust of the wind. With respect to the lights which were added by R & M approximately halfway up thepole, Sabbaghian stated that these lights were a very small factor in the pole falling. He found that these lights addedabout twenty percent more to the twisting stress. In terms of the wind or weight load, he found the fixtures halfway upthe pole were not as significant as the fixtures on the very top. Overall, he considered the weight of the lights to beinsignificant compared to the stress placed on the pole by the banners and the force of the wind on the banners andthe pole.

As constructed with the threaded base, Sabbaghian found that the pole, without the banners attached to it, wasable to sustain wind loads of at least 118 miles per hour, in excess of the 100 miles, per hour design specifications ofthe pole. He testified that the upright member furthest from the store failed when it was pulled in tension due to theload of the banners and the wind. Afterwards, the other two upright members failed at the threads due to tension andbending. He explained that whether the upright members were welded or threaded was immaterial because the pipethat the banners were pulling against failed before the other legs of the pole failed at the thread.

Fred Vanderbrook, a mechanical engineer, investigated the light pole accident to determine the primary mode offailure. He examined pictures of the pole after it failed and reviewed the calculations of Sabbaghian. He testified thathe believed the pole failed due to the stress of the wind forces acting on the banners of pennants which had been tiedto the pole. He explained that the wind forces acting on the pennants caused substantial lateral or horizontal force onthe pole, which caused it to collapse in the direction of the store. He explained that the pole failed because it wasoverstressed, the stress being greater than the strength of the pipe. He believed the primary cause of the overstresswas the tensile forces exerted by the banners blowing in the wind. He estimated the wind forces to be less thanseventy to seventy-five miles per hour and opined that the pole failure was not caused by an act of God.

Vanderbrook testified that it appeared that the pole broke off down inside the base. He stated that the base of thepole did not appear to have been constructed with the use of fillet welds. He explained that the use of fillet weldsrather than threaded connections at the base may have increased the pole's strength.

Dr. Ewing Berkley Traughaber, a structural engineer, testified that the light pole failed due to fatigue resultingfrom the

Page 964

pole being poorly designed with no diagonal bracing. He explained that the pole had too much torsional flexibility,which gave the pole the tendency to twist. Although the pole was designed with horizontal bracing, he explained thatthe threesided pole needed diagonal bracing to provide torsional rigidity. Addressing the effect of the lights which hadbeen added approximately halfway up the pole, Traughaber testified that if the lights were not contained within thethree upright members of the pole but were attached so that they stuck out beyond the three upright members of thepole, the additional lights could have had a great effect on the pole by making it more susceptible to twisting.

https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=3wxMZPvCSQrv6j0tWH21LHMzOrplUYpgOmnZxjie%2bkcoPdDGuUJfLOimiOQYcE0dINv7R1dqk1ctdU7X%2bhActduWw%2flhh7QAnA8VNcgdgoUEfxCbC5yiAXHTOg3ypGJAucpDYnUN2sQOkTuCIN5By31Z2eC67zSfMNzk2k1qFsY%3d&ECF=510+U.S.+1114

https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=3wxMZPvCSQrv6j0tWH21LHMzOrplUYpgOmnZxjie%2bkcoPdDGuUJfLOimiOQYcE0dINv7R1dqk1ctdU7X%2bhActduWw%2flhh7QAnA8VNcgdgoUEfxCbC5yiAXHTOg3ypGJAucpDYnUN2sQOkTuCIN5By31Z2eC67zSfMNzk2k1qFsY%3d&ECF=114+S.Ct.+1059

https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=3wxMZPvCSQrv6j0tWH21LHMzOrplUYpgOmnZxjie%2bkcoPdDGuUJfLOimiOQYcE0dINv7R1dqk1ctdU7X%2bhActduWw%2flhh7QAnA8VNcgdgoUEfxCbC5yiAXHTOg3ypGJAucpDYnUN2sQOkTuCIN5By31Z2eC67zSfMNzk2k1qFsY%3d&ECF=127+L.Ed.2d+379+(1994)

https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=3wxMZPvCSQrv6j0tWH21LHMzOrplUYpgOmnZxjie%2bkcoPdDGuUJfLOimiOQYcE0dINv7R1dqk1ctdU7X%2bhActduWw%2flhh7QAnA8VNcgdgoUEfxCbC5yiAXHTOg3ypGJAucpDYnUN2sQOkTuCIN5By31Z2eC67zSfMNzk2k1qFsY%3d&ECF=127+L.Ed.2d+379+(1994)

Traughaber addressed the threading of the pole at its base. He stated that the cross-sectional area of pipe isreduced when it is threaded and that if a pipe breaks, it usually breaks in the threads. Upon examining photographs ofthe pipes, he detected corrosion on the pipe. Traughaber testified the corrosion indicated the pole had been movingback and forth. He determined that two of the three aluminum upright members actually broke in two when the poleleaned away from the store in the opposite direction of the banners. He believed the pole failed at its weakest spot,which was in the threads of the base. In his opinion, the load the banners placed on the pole was quite small and wasnot the cause of the failure.

Ivan V. Pieratt, a structural engineer who previously worked for Walter P. Moore & Associates, testified that Wide-Lite had hired Walter P. Moore & Associates to conduct a computer analysis of thirty and forty-foot steel and aluminumpoles during 1971. He testified that his analysis of wind loading on the forty-foot aluminum pole revealed the design ofthe pole was defective. Concluding that the bracing was inadequate, he found the pole would fail in a 100 mile-per-hour wind because the braces were too far apart. Thus, in Pieratt's opinion, the pole would not be able to withstandthe designated 100 mile-per-hour wind load for which it had been designed. After conducting his analysis, Pierattwrote a letter to Wide-Lite informing it of his conclusion and recommending that additional bracing be used.

Pieratt acknowledged, however, that he did not know whether the pole he tested had the same design and/orproperties as the pole which actually collapsed during March of 1991. He stated that the testing he conducted wasbased on a pole designed with a fillet weld at the base rather than a threaded connection at the base. He explainedthat the testing he conducted did not involve the physical testing of a pole, but rather was a computer analysis basedon input data provided to him by Wide-Lite. He also stated that his wind load testing calculations were based on anassumption that a specific light fixture, the Wide-Lite 4000, was installed on the pole. He noted that his test resultswould be invalid if a different fixture with different properties had been installed on the pole. Pieratt agreed that it waspossible that banners attached to the light pole could have stressed the pole beyond its design capabilities. In hisopinion, it was not foreseeable that banners of plastic pendants would be attached to the pole.

Shoemake, the electrical contractor employed by R & M, testified that aluminum poles can collapse from metalfatigue. He explained that they should be visually checked for cracks every two years. When Shoemake installed theadditional lighting on the pole during 1990, he checked all of the welds on the pole for cracks but did not see any. Hestated that the shopping center owners did not object to him adding the additional light fixtures.

Shoemake explained that the banners were tied below the lights which he had added to the pole. He thought thepole could handle the banners. He and other employees of R & M had attached banners to the pole. He described thatthe banners were tied "bolstering tight" because

Page 965

of the tendency for them to sag after they had been hanging for a while. He never inquired of Genlyte whether it wassafe to attach the banners or lights to the pole. He also stated he never saw any warnings from Genlyte advising not toattach banners to the pole. Shoemake testified that he installs poles for various businesses and, in his opinion, it wasforeseeable that someone might attach banners to a pole or that they would modify the lighting on a pole. Heacknowledged that no banners or additional lights had been attached to the other light pole in the Sunflower parkinglot, which was still standing as of the time of trial.

Frank R. Buccere, an assistant manager of R & M Foods at the time of the accident, testified that the Sunflowerstore employees would use a truck to hang the banners. One end of each banner was tied to one of the flagpoles on thefront of the store, and the other end of the banner was tied to the light pole. He recalled the banners having "somesway" in them when they were attached to the pole.

George Burke, owner of Executive Sign and Lighting, was accepted by the court as an expert in the area of signfabrication and causation of sign failure. On the day of the accident, he removed the failed pole at the request ofDeborah Holtgren, who worked for Poirier, and sent the invoice to Channel Shopping Center. In his opinion, the severewinds that day had caused the pole failure. He described that the pole had broken at the bottom and had fallen towardthe store. He recalled having to saw off one of the three legs at the base to remove the pole. He also opined that it wasforeseeable that stores would attach banners to light poles as R & M had done.

Martin, one of the owners of R & M, testified he operated the Sunflower store since 1972 or 1973. He stated thathe never received any type of warning from Genlyte or Channel Shopping Center advising that the design of the polewas defective or that the banners should not be attached to the pole. He also testified that there were no warningsposted on the pole, and that he had not received any warnings from Genlyte regarding adding or changing lighting onthe pole.

Larry Mixon, an R & M store manager, arrived at the accident scene after the pole had been removed from theroof of Cortez's car. He stated that the pole had broken at the bottom above the pedestal base. He said the bannerswere still attached to the pole, and it looked like it had been pulled out of the base.

Stanley Snodgrass, a risk manager employed by R & M at the time of the accident, testified that R & M had addedthe additional lights on the pole in question. He was also aware of R & M's ongoing practice of tying the banners to thepole. However, he had no knowledge whether either Genlyte or Channel Shopping Center representatives had beenconsulted prior to R & M's installation of the additional light fixtures or attachment of the banners.

Donald S. Lanier, assistant manager of the Sunflower store at the time of the accident, testified that there hadbeen no warning from Genlyte that the pole was defective or that the banners should not be tied to it. He also statedthat the Poiriers never instructed anyone not to tie banners to the pole, and that the pole itself had no type of warningagainst the attachment of banners.

Joe Edwards, a district supervisor who had worked for R & M since 1974, testified that R & M had been using thedecorative banners since 1974 and had never before had an incident with a light pole.

C. Propriety of the Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

In Anderson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 583 So.2d 829, 832 (La.1991), the Louisiana Supreme Courtreiterated the criteria first set forth in Scott v. Hospital Service Dist. No. 1, 496 So.2d 270 (La. 1986), to be used indetermining whether a JNOV has been properly granted pursuant

Page 966

to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1811:

A JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one partythat the court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The motion should be granted onlywhen the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach differentconclusions, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. If there is evidence opposed to themotion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgmentmight reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. In making this determination, the court should notevaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favorof the non-moving party.

In reviewing a JNOV, the appellate court must first determine if the trial court erred in granting the JNOV. This isdone by using the aforementioned criteria just as the trial judge does in deciding whether to grant the motion or not,i.e. do the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable mencould not arrive at a contrary verdict? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, then the trial judge wascorrect in granting the motion. If, however, reasonable men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach adifferent conclusion, then it was error to grant the motion and the jury verdict should be reinstated. (Citation omitted.)

After setting forth the applicable criteria for considering a motion for a JNOV, the trial court concluded:

[T]his court is troubled in only one aspect of the jury verdict, its allocation of 70% fault to [Channel]. As statedabove, [Channel] settled with Cortez prior to trial and never made an appearance at trial. Consequently, no evidence ofany defense favoring [Channel] was introduced, nor was any evidence of any fault on the part of [Channel] introducedduring the trial. The only evidence to the jury concerning [Channel] was via a stipulation that [Channel] was theowner/lessor of the shopping center premises.

Based on the jury answers to interrogatories that Genlyte, the manufacturer, was at fault, this court mustconclude the jury felt the light pole in question was defective under a products liability analysis. Given that this factualfinding coupled with the knowledge that the shopping center and pole were owned by [Channel] could have been theonly basis for any allocation of fault on the part of [Channel], this court must conclude the jury found itself in aproverbial "Catch-22" (who should bear the responsibility for the defective thing, the land owner who relied on themanufacturer to build a reasonably safe product or the manufacturer, who built the defective product.) This requiresthe resolution of legal issues, which are reserved to the court.

This court is of the opinion that fairness and justice require the manufacturer of a defective product to bear theentire responsibility for the defective product it made and not the landowner, whose premise is defective solelybecause of the defective product made by the manufacturer. The court will grant the JNOV as it relates to areallocation of fault by assessing Genlyte, the manufacturer of the defective light pole with both its original juryallocation of 20% and that of [Channel] (70%) for a total allocation of fault to Genlyte of 90%.

In determining whether the trial court erred in granting the JNOV, we consider whether the facts and inferencespoint so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of plaintiff's argument in support of the JNOV that reasonable men couldnot arrive

Page 967

at a contrary verdict. Plaintiff argues there was virtually no testimony regarding any negligence or lack of care on thepart of Channel Shopping Center and, thus, there was no evidence to support the jury's assessment of seventy percentfault to Channel Shopping Center. Plaintiff submits there was extensive evidence that the pole was defective and that R& M's actions of adding lights to the pole and tying banners to the poles added stress to the pole, causing it to fail.

Plaintiff contends that if Channel Shopping Center was found to be at fault because the pole was defective basedon strict liability principles, such liability should be borne by Genlyte, the manufacturer, based on a products liabilityanalysis. Plaintiff also contends that R & M's third party negligence is a defense to such strict liability and that R & M'sactions in adding one-hundred pounds of lights to the pole and stringing the banners to the pole constitutednegligence sufficient to relieve Channel Shopping Center of any liability.

Strict liability is based on a theory of responsibility which requires no finding of negligence. Howard v. AllstateIns. Co., 520 So.2d 715, 717 (La.1988). In the present case, the parties stipulated that the light poles in the shoppingcenter parking lot were under the care, custody and control of the shopping center owners. Thus, the jury did not haveto find Channel Shopping Center to be negligent to assess fault to it.

The jury was presented with expert testimony which supported the conclusion that the failure of the pole wascaused by the tension of the banners pulling on the pole and the stress of the wind forces acting on the pennants. The

https://apps.fastcase.com/Research/Pages/Document.aspx?LTID=3wxMZPvCSQrv6j0tWH21LHMzOrplUYpgOmnZxjie%2bkcoPdDGuUJfLOimiOQYcE0dINv7R1dqk1ctdU7X%2bhActduWw%2flhh7QAnA8VNcgdgoUEfxCbC5yiAXHTOg3ypGJAucpDYnUN2sQOkTuCIN5By31Z2eC67zSfMNzk2k1qFsY%3d&ECF=Howard+v.+Allstate+Ins.+Co.%2c++520+So.2d+715




jury also was presented with expert testimony from which it could have inferred that the modification of the light poleby the addition of lights weighing one hundred pounds increased the pole's torsional flexibility, causing it to be morelikely to fail. Since the jury allocated ten percent fault to R & M, the jury obviously concluded that the failure of thepole was not caused entirely by its defective design or construction.

While plaintiff correctly notes that third party negligence can be a defense to strict liability, plaintiff does notacknowledge that the jury may have concluded that Channel Shopping Center was not only liable based on theprinciples of strict liability as a result of the pole being defective but also on a negligence basis. The light poles were inthe care, custody and control of Channel Shopping Center. The jury may have concluded that Channel ShoppingCenter was negligent in allowing R & M to engage in the practice of tying banners to the light poles for years withoutinquiring of the manufacturer whether the light pole was designed to withstand such use. Likewise, the jury may haveconcluded that Channel Shopping Center should not have allowed R & M to modify the light pole by adding lightswithout inquiring of the manufacturer whether such modification was safe.

In granting the JNOV, the trial court concluded that the only basis on which the jury could have concludedChannel Shopping Center was liable was as owner of the defective pole, and that it was proper to allocate all faultattributable to the defective pole to its manufacturer, Genlyte. Based on the varying evidence presented to the jury, weconclude the trial court improperly inferred that Channel Shopping Center's liability was based solely on its ownershipof a defective pole. Considering all of the evidence, we find the facts and inferences do not point so strongly andoverwhelmingly in favor of this conclusion that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict;reasonable men could reach a verdict contrary to the trial court's JNOV allocation of ninety percent fault to Genlyteand ten percent fault to R & M. The record does not support the trial court's observation that there was no testimonyfrom which negligence or lack of care on the part of Channel Shopping Center could have been inferred. The jury'sassessment of fault to Channel Shopping

Page 968

Center is reasonable and is supported by the record. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court erred in granting the

motion for JNOV.6

D. Assessment of Fault to R & M

R & M contends the jury and/or the trial court erred in assessing any fault to it, urging that the sole cause of thefailure of the pole was that the pole was defective and that all fault should have been attributed to Genlyte. R & Masserts that the testimony of Traughaber and Pieratt established the pole was defective both in design and inmanufacture, and that the testimony of Burke and Traughaber established that the attachment of banners to the polewas a foreseeable use of the pole. R & M urges that if the attachment of banners to the pole was a danger to theintegrity of the pole, then Genlyte had a duty to place a warning on the pole against attaching banners. R & Mmaintains that the record establishes that no such warning was ever issued by Genlyte or by Channel Shopping Center.In summary, R & M argues that the attachment of the banners to the pole played no part in its failure; alternatively, ifthe banners did cause the pole to fail, R & M was not negligent because the failure was not foreseeable to R & M.

In the present case, the jury was presented with more than one permissible view concerning the cause of the polefailure. While the expert testimony of Traughaber and Pieratt support R & M's position that the failure of the pole wasdue to the pole being defective, the expert testimony of Sabbaghian and Vanderbrook support the position that thefailure of the pole was due to the tension caused by the banners pulling on the pole. Additionally, the testimony ofTraughaber and Sabbaghian supports an inference that R & M's modification of the light pole by adding the lightscontributed to the pole's instability and ultimate failure. The jury apparently concluded that It & M's modification ofthe pole and/or its actions of tying the banners to the pole was, at the least, one of the causes for the pole failure.Since the record contains evidence to support this conclusion, it is a permissible one which cannot be found to bemanifestly erroneous.

R & M argues that it was not negligent in failing to foresee that its actions caused the pole to fail. The testimonyestablished that R & M engaged in the practice of tying the banners to the pole for several years. Although theevidence did not establish the exact number of banners tied to the pole on the day of the accident, the testimony didestablish that during these years as many as eighteen banners may have been tied to the light pole at any given time.At least one witness testified that when the banners were attached to the pole, they were pulled tight to compensatefor any tendency in the banners to sag. Based on these facts, the jury may have concluded that it was unreasonable forR & M to engage in this practice without first inquiring of Genlyte or Channel Shopping Center whether such practicewould affect the integrity of the pole. R & M also modified the light pole by adding lights weighing one hundredpounds without verifying that the pole could withstand the additional stress. Considering these facts, we find nomanifest error in the jury's determination that R & M should have foreseen that its actions in tying banners to the poleand/or modifying the pole would affect the integrity of the pole and could cause its failure.

R & M argues that Genlyte and/or Channel Shopping Center had a duty to warn R & M of the dangers ofattaching the banners to the pole or modifying the pole. Considering the jury's allocation of fault, we believe the jurymay have found

Page 969

some merit in this argument and accounted for it by assessing greater percentages of fault to Channel ShoppingCenter and Genlyte than to R & M.

Accordingly, we conclude the record supports the jury's allocation of ten percent of the fault to R & M. R & M'sanswer to the appeal is without merit.

E. Damages

I. Causation

Genlyte and R & M argue that the evidence does not establish that the roof of the car hit Cortez's head, causingher cervical disc problem. Genlyte asserts that Cortez had been treated for severe headaches prior to 1991, suggestingthat Cortez's medical problems predated the light pole accident. Genlyte additionally contends that the medicalevidence does not establish that Cortez suffered a disc herniation requiring surgical intervention.

During the trial, several witnesses addressed the damage to Cortez's car which resulted from the pole failure.Russell Hoover, the person who disconnected the power to the pole before it was removed from Cortez's car, andDonald Lanier described the roof of plaintiff's car as "caved in." Cortez explained that the driver's seat of her car wasadjustable and was raised to the highest position when the accident happened. Cortez stated that when the light polefell on her car, the roof of the car hit the top of her head. Tom Davidson, an accident reconstruction expert, testifiedthat the car was depressed when the pole fell on it, and the occupant's body would have moved upward toward theroof of the car upon impact.

On the day of the accident, Cortez was examined in the emergency room by Dr. Helen Elizabeth Gaines, whotestified that plaintiff complained of neck and upper back pain, forehead pain and the onset of a headache. Dr. Gainesdiagnosed a forehead contusion a headache and cervical and thoracic strain secondary to a motor vehicle accident.Anti-inflammatory, muscle relaxer and pain medications were prescribed.

Several days later, when Cortez's head and neck continued to hurt and she began to have problems with hervision, lack of sleep and emotional trauma, she sought medical attention from her family physician, Dr. PatrickToreson. Dr. Toreson diagnosed muscle strain, muscle contraction headaches and mild posttraumatic stress disorder.Upon Dr. Toreson's suggestion, Cortez sought the advice of a psychiatrist and an orthopedist.

Dr. James B. Denney, a psychiatrist, began treating Cortez on March 26, 1991. He diagnosed posttraumatic stressdisorder and depression and testified that these problems were directly related to the light pole accident. Dr. Denneyexplained that the accident caused Cortez to become fearful of driving, more emotional, irritable, easily angered, andwithdrawn. He explained that Cortez also suffered from chronic pain syndrome, which was secondary to herorthopedic problems. He treated her depression and anxiety with prescription medications. Dr. Denney also counseledCortez regarding problems with claustrophobia that arose during the course of the medical testing for her neckproblems.

Dr. Kenneth Adatto, an orthopedist, began treating Cortez on May 14, 1991. He diagnosed a ruptured disc at theC4-5 level. He treated Cortez's symptoms conservatively through the early summer of 1992, and advised that shemight eventually need surgical intervention. Dr. Adatto identified the March 1, 1991 accident as the cause of the C4-5disc becoming painful.

During October of 1991, Cortez consulted with a neurologist, Dr. Maria A. Palmer, regarding her headaches. Dr.Palmer diagnosed muscle contraction headaches secondary to cervical spasm and related the diagnosis to the March1991 accident. Dr. Palmer testified that while Cortez gave a history of suffering from migraine headaches prior to theaccident, the headaches

Page 970

which Cortez described experiencing after the accident were a different type of headache. Dr. Palmer continued totreat Cortez for severe headaches.

During October of 1992, about a year and a half after the accident, Cortez continued to have neck pain andfrequent headaches. She sought treatment from Dr. John D. Jackson, a neurosurgeon, who surgically removed the C4-5disc and performed an anterior cervical fusion. Based on the history related by Cortez, Dr. Jackson testified that thelight pole incident caused the C4-5 disc to rupture or bulge.

During 1994, Cortez experienced numbness in both hands, which Dr. Palmer diagnosed as mild carpal tunnelsyndrome symptoms brought on by the chronic neck problems. Although the results of Cortez's neck surgery weresatisfactory according to Dr. Jackson, at the time of trial during January of 1997, she continued to have neck pain,headaches and difficulty with sleeping.

During the trial, Cortez testified she had not had any accidents or injuries and considered herself to be in goodhealth prior to March 1, 1991. She stated that she had suffered only occasional headaches with pain across herforehead prior to the accident. After the accident, she suffered severe, frequent headaches which were confined to theskull. She stated that she had never had neck pain or sought orthopedic or chiropractic treatment prior to theaccident.

Upon reviewing the evidence, we find the record supports the jury's finding that Cortez sustained an injury onMarch 1, 1991. The jury apparently believed Cortez's testimony that the roof of the car struck her head during theaccident. Although the defendants disputed whether Cortez actually had an abnormal disc at the C4-5 level. Dr. Adattoand Dr. Jackson concluded that she did and related the injury to the March 1991 accident. We find no manifest error inthe jury's conclusion that Cortez sustained injuries as a result of the light pole accident.

Defendants also dispute whether surgical treatment was necessary as a result of Cortez's injury. However, Cortezexplained that she opted to have the surgery, upon Dr. Jackson's recommendation, when her pain became unbearable.The jury apparently accepted this testimony. We find no manifest error in this finding.

2. Amount of Damages Awarded

The jury assessed damages in the following amounts: $120,000.00 for past and future physical pain and suffering,$20,000.00 for past and future mental anguish, $41,000.00 for past medical expenses, $4,000.00 for future medicalexpenses and $75,000.00 for loss of quality of life.

Both Genlyte and R & M assert that the damages awarded were excessive. They claim that Cortez's mentalanguish from the accident was greatly exacerbated by the death of her cousin and her cousin's child in 1991, and byCortez's witnessing the accidental death of her husband in 1992. They assert these other events greatly affectedCortez's psychological and emotional state but are not related to the light pole accident.

Dr. Denney acknowledged that shortly after the May 1991 accident in which Cortez's cousin and cousin's babywere killed, Cortez reported that her headaches were worse. Dr. Denney described this accident as a significanttrauma that focused Cortez's attention on the trauma which she had experienced in March of 1991 related to the lightpole accident. Dr. Denney also stated that when Cortez's husband died during August of 1992, she experienced"normal, appropriate grief, which she dealt with in a timely way and in a very efficient way." Dr. Denney stated he wasable to distinguish between the grief Cortez experienced as a result of the loss of her husband and the depression sheexperienced as a result of the light pole accident.

Page 971

Dr. Denney stated that within a three to six month period following her husband's death, Cortez began to focusless on her husband's death and began taking a more active role in her life. He stated that while the death of herhusband was an additional burden for Cortez to bear, it did not cause her posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms tolast longer than they otherwise would have. As of March 1995, Dr. Denney found Cortez to be eighty percent recoveredfrom her posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. However, Dr. Denney testified that as of May 1996, Cortez remainedfearful of driving, was still suffering from insomnia related to the posttraumatic stress disorder, and was being treatedwith an antidepressant medication. Cortez testified during the trial that she was still taking this medication.

Dr. Douglas Stewart, a psychiatrist who conducted an independent medical exam during September of 1994,testified that Cortez suffered from mixed anxiety and depression and a stress-related disorder following the light poleaccident. Dr. Stewart believed Cortez's stress-related problems attributable to the light pole incident lastedapproximately three to six months after the accident with her physical difficulties continuing after that time. While Dr.Stewart found Cortez's situation was exacerbated by the accidental deaths of her family members, he testified that theinjuries Cortez sustained in the light pole accident were the primary cause of her symptoms of depression.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in the damages awarded. Cortez sufferedsevere physical and psychological injuries requiring extensive medical treatment. As of the time of trial nearly sixyears after the accident, Cortez continued to have medical problems related to the accident. With respect to the$20,000.00 award for past and future mental anguish, the record establishes through the testimony of Dr. Denney andDr. Stewart that the light pole accident caused Cortez to suffer posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms for at leastthree to six months. The testimony of Cortez's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Denney, supports a finding that Cortez'spsychiatric problems resulting from the light pole accident continued for years after the accident. The jury may haveplaced greater weight on the testimony of Dr. Denney than on the testimony of Dr. Stewart in assessing damages formental anguish. The jury is afforded this discretion. The record supports the award.

III. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we reverse the trial court's January 20, 1998 judgment notwithstanding the verdict andrender judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict. R & M Foods, Inc., Sunflower Foods, Inc., and Zurich InsuranceCompany are assessed one-third of the appeal costs and Genlyte Group Incorporated is assessed two-thirds of theappeal costs.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

---------------

Notes:

1. Mrs. Cortez's husband, Murphy Cortez, Jr., was initially named as a plaintiff advancing a loss of consortium claim.Prior to the trial, Mr. Cortez died in an accident. During trial, Mrs. Cortez waived this claim.

2. The record also references this entity as Sunflower Stores, Inc. Although not specifically named as a defendant inplaintiff's petition, Sunflower Stores, Inc. answered the allegations of the petition. Super Valu Stores, Inc. ("SuperValue") was also named as a defendant as the successor in interest to Sunflower Stores, Inc. The record establishesthat the Sunflower store premises were subleased from Super Value by R & M.

3. The record includes other spellings of this name, including Channel' and Chanell.

4. Many third party demands and cross-claims were filed in the proceedings below but are not at issue in this appeal.

5. By Acts 1996, 1st Ex.Sess., No. 1, § 1, effective April 16, 1966, La.C.C. art. 2317.1 was enacted to provide that theowner is liable only upon a showing that he knew or should have known of the damage-causing ruin, vice, or defect.Because the accident in this case occurred before the effective date of this statute, we apply the legal principles ineffect prior to its enactment.

6. Based on this determination, we pretermit a discussion of Genlyte's alternative argument that in granting JNOV, thetrial court erred in not allocating more than ten percent of the fault to R & M. We also note that while plaintiff arguedthat the record supported the JNOV, she did not raise the alternative argument that the jury's allocation of fault wasmanifestly erroneous.

---------------

APPENDIX

B

Interest Calculation Report generated for James Johnson on Jan 7, 2017

CompQuantum.com


Interest Calculation Reference: Appendix B

Interest calculationBegin Date: 2012-07-05End Date: 2017-01-05Principal: $100,000.00Interest: $18,014.50

Interest accrual days in 2012: 179Total days in 2012: 366Interest rate for 2012: 4.00%Total interest for 2012: $1,956.28Interest rate for 2013: 4.00%Total interest for 2013: $4,000.00Interest rate for 2014: 4.00%Total interest for 2014: $4,000.00Interest rate for 2015: 4.00%Total interest for 2015: $4,000.00Interest rate for 2016: 4.00%Total interest for 2016: $4,000.00Interest accrual days in 2017: 5Total days in 2017: 365Interest rate for 2017: 4.25%Total interest for 2017: $58.22

https://compquantum.com/?source=promo

Louisiana Judicial Interest Rates

2000 7.285%2001 8.241%2002 5.75%2003 4.5%2004 5.25%2005 6.0%2006 8.0%2007 9.5%2008 8.5%2009 5.5%2010 3.75%2011 4.0%2012 4.0%2013 4.0%2014 4.0%2015 4.0%2016 4.0%2017 4.25%

Relevant statutes:C.C.P. art.1921

Interest allowed by the judgment

R.S. 13:4203Interest on judgments from judicial demand in ex delictocases

C.C. art. 2000Damages for delay measured by interest; no need of proof;attorney fees

R.S. 13:4202 Rates of judicial interest

Compquantum.com is a service of InCode Research, L.L.C.230 Chancellor Ave.
