Protecting Your Verdict: Why Jury Awards Stand in Louisiana Trucking Cases

Winning a trial against a major logistics company is a massive victory, but for many victims, it is only the beginning. Trucking defense firms often appeal high jury awards, seeking a “Remittitur” (a court order reducing the award). However, Louisiana law provides a strong shield for victims: the “Much Discretion” of the trier of fact.

It may not be uncommon to recover less than you had hoped in a personal injury lawsuit. However, challenging the amount of money you are awarded to get more is a challenging feat. A recent case out of the East Baton Rouge Parish explains why courts tend to defer to the jury when awarding damages. A jury’s ‘Yes’ is just the first step. To see how we protect your recovery from aggressive defense appeals, visit our Louisiana Truck Accident Lawyer Practice Hub.

Stephen Gordon was driving his car on Interstate-10 with his wife, Melissa Gordon, in the passenger seat on the Mississippi River bridge in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. While Gordon was driving in the middle lane, a Mack dump truck was traveling eastbound in the left lane. The truck driver merged into the middle lane and hit Gordon’s car. The Gordons alleged that they were injured in the accident and filed suit. They sued Paul Wright, the driver of the dump truck; Vision Trucking, LLC, the owner of the dump truck; Joseph W. Wright, Jr, the driver’s employer; the owner of Vision Trucking, LLC; and the liability insurer of the driver and Vision Trucking, LLC. Ms. Gordon then settled all her claims against the defendants, and Mr. Gordon’s claims proceeded to trial. 

At trial, the court determined that Mr. Gordon lacked credibility and appeared to exaggerate the extent of his injuries because much of his testimony about his injuries and treatment was contradicted by other evidence. However, the trial court still noted that Mr. Gordon had extensive treatment to his back, neck, and right leg before the accident, which intensified his pre-existing condition. The court awarded Mr. Gordon $15,000 in general damages and $5,092.07 in special damages, and Mr. Gordon appealed. Mr. Gordon argued the trial court failed to award him the full amount he claimed in special damages for his past medical expenses, failed to award future medical expenses for recommended surgeries, and abused its discretion in awarding general damages that were “unreasonably low.” 

Upon review, the court explained that judges and the jury are afforded a great amount of discretion when awarding general and special damages, and they are given great deference when their allocation of damages is under review. Kelley v. General Ins. Co. of America and Guillory v. Lee. Generally, the appellate court should rarely disturb the jury’s decision because their level of discretion is so vast. Further, the jury is also given great deference for its factual findings. In Gordon’s case, he offered evidence of past medical expenses amounting to $5,092.07 and $27,980.20, and then $66,032.76 for a future recommended treatment. 

The “Abuse of Discretion” Standard (Coco v. Winston Industries)

In Louisiana, appellate courts cannot simply lower a damage award because they would have awarded less. Under the landmark case Coco v. Winston Industries, an appellate court can only disturb a jury’s award if it finds an “abuse of discretion.”

1. The Subjective Test: The court looks at the specific facts and the specific effect of the truck accident on this particular victim.
2. The Floor and Ceiling: Only if the award is “beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess” can the court move the award to the highest (or lowest) point that would have been reasonable.

High jury awards are often paid out by the Excess and Umbrella Insurance layers we identify during discovery. To justify a high general damage award, we use Black Box data to prove the terrifying force of the impact. The liability of the company who employees the driver can be an issue before the court as well and sometimes you we have to establish Vicarious Liability to hold them responsible.

In Louisiana, a personal injury plaintiff may recover past and future medical expenses dating from the injury as long as the plaintiff can prove the existence of the injuries and a causal connection between the injuries and the accident. A plaintiff can establish a causal relationship through medical testimony that demonstrates that it is more likely than not the injuries were caused by the accident. Further, when an accident aggravates a pre-existing condition, the defendant must compensate the plaintiff for the extent of the aggravation injury. 

Before the car accident, Mr. Gordon received treatment for his back, neck, and right leg, and the aggravation of those pre-existing injuries was treated in four to six months. The trial court relied on Mr. Gordon’s doctor’s testimony and awarded $5,092.07. However, the court also found that Mr. Gordon failed to prove the recommendation of future medical treatment resulted from the accident and that the expense would not be related to the injury. 

General vs. Special Damages in Catastrophic Claims

Truck accident awards are typically split into two categories, and the level of “discretion” varies for each:

• Special Damages: These are objective costs like medical bills, lost wages, and home modifications. Because these are based on receipts and expert testimony (e.g., life care planners), they are harder for the defense to challenge.
• General Damages: These cover “Pain and Suffering,” “Loss of Enjoyment of Life,” and “Mental Anguish.” Because these are subjective, Louisiana law gives juries “much discretion” in setting these amounts.

When evaluating whether the trial court abused its discretion, the court noted the jury was hearing conflicting expert testimony. For example, one doctor said that Mr. Gordon would need future medical treatment because of the accident, which was based on the inaccurate medical history provided by Mr. Gordon. In contrast, another doctor said that Mr. Gordon’s condition had been restored to the state before the accident. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it was simply weighing the evidence presented in the trial.

Overall, juries have immense discretion when allocating damages. This is why plaintiffs should provide compelling evidence of their damages to recover a suitable amount. If a plaintiff ever needs to challenge a damages award, it may be difficult to recover more because courts typically defer to the jury’s decisions. 

Defending Against the “Excessive” Argument

When a trucking company argues an award is excessive, they often point to “comparable cases.” However, we argue that every 18-wheeler crash is unique. For a victim with a traumatic brain injury or spinal fusion, a $5 million award may seem high to a corporate insurer, but it is often the bare minimum required to maintain the victim’s quality of life.

Written by: Berniard Law Firm 

Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on discretion to award damages: Injured While Receiving a Massage and a Court’s Discretion to Award Damages