Opinion
Case No. 20-CA-248 c/w 20-CA-249
03-05-2021
James Williams and Loreng Crouch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al C/W Charles Allen v. James Williams, Loreng Crouch, Affirmative Casualty Insurance Company, et al
FREDERICKA H. WICKER JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST HANS J. LILJEBERG JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGES MARY E. LEGNON CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FIRST DEPUTY CLERK MELISSA C. LEDET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF To all recipients of the opinion in the above referenced case:
On February 17, 2021, an opinion was rendered in the above case. After reviewing the opinion, the following corrections have been made:
Page 9 , Footnote 9, line 3 - "$300.00.00" has been changed to "$300,000.00".
Page 15 , Line 1 - Reed, supra cite, was removed and replaced with: Baudy, supra.
Page 15 , Line 3 - "Id." citation is still correct and does not need to be changed.
Page 16 , line 14 & 15 - "Stultz" has been changed to "Stoltz".
A copy of the corrected pages is enclosed. Please substitute the corrected pages in the opinion previously sent.
Kind Regards,
/s/
Curtis B. Pursell
Clerk of Court CBP/nfv directed verdict on Williams' lost wage claims, which the trial court granted. The State also moved for a dismissal of Williams' stroke-related claims—asserting that Dr. Sabatier was not qualified to render an expert opinion as to causation of Williams' stroke—, which the trial judge denied.
The State additionally moved for a directed verdict on the issue of liability, which the trial court denied. The State also moved for a directed verdict on Williams' future medicals, which the trial court granted. Williams does not challenge that ruling and, thus, that ruling is not before us on appeal.
Following a three-day trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Williams, finding that Trooper Borcheding's negligence caused Williams' injuries, and awarded Williams a total amount of $2,902,710.00. On January 30, 2019, the trial court issued a judgment consistent with the jury verdict but reduced the general damage award to $500,000.00, pursuant to the statutory cap provided in La. R.S. 13:5106(B)(1). The State has appealed the January 30, 2019 judgment, contending that the trial judge abused his discretion in allowing Williams' medical expert, Dr. Sabatier, to testify concerning the causal connection between the accident and Williams' post-accident stroke. Williams and Crouch have filed an Answer to the Appeal. In the Answer, Williams complains of the trial court's granting of a directed verdict in the State's favor as to his claims for past and future lost wages. Crouch complains of the trial court's granting of a directed verdict on her claim for property damage to her vehicle involved in the accident. For the following reasons, we affirm. DISCUSSION
The jury verdict awarded $2,710.00 in past medical expenses; $200,000.00 in past physical pain and suffering; $1,000,000.00 in future physical pain and suffering; $200,000.00 in past mental anguish; $500,000.00 in future mental anguish; $200,000.00 for past loss of enjoyment of life; $300,000.00 for future loss of enjoyment of life; and $500,000.00 for disability. --------
On appeal, the State contends that the trial judge erred in permitting Dr. Sabatier, a general surgeon who never treated Williams for his stroke-related injuries, to testify concerning a causal link between the accident at issue and submitted, reasonable people could not reach a contrary result. Baudy, supra at 131. Moreover, the propriety of a directed verdict must be evaluated in light of the substantive law related to the claims. Id.
As a general rule, awards for past and future lost wages are considered special damages, i.e., those which can be established to a reasonable mathematical certainty. Ezzell v. Miranne, 11-228 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/11), 84 So.3d 641, 651-52; Cottle v. Conagra Poultry Co., 06-1160 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/14/07), 954 So.2d 255, 256 (citation omitted). To recover for actual wage loss, a plaintiff must prove the length of time missed from work due to the tort and must prove past lost earnings. Past lost earnings are susceptible of mathematical calculation from evidence offered at trial. An award for past lost earnings requires evidence as reasonably establishes the claim, which may consist of the plaintiff's own testimony. An award for past lost earnings is not subject to the much-discretion rule when it is susceptible of mathematical calculation from documentary proof. The plaintiff's uncorroborated, self-serving testimony will not be sufficient to support an award if it is shown that corroborative evidence was available and was not produced. Hymel ex rel. Hymel v. Thomas, 99-826 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/21/99), 758 So.2d 201, 209.
To obtain an award for future loss of earning capacity, a plaintiff must present medical evidence that indicates with reasonable certainty that a residual disability causally related to the accident exists. However, future loss of earnings, although inherently speculative, must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, and purely conjectural or uncertain future loss of earnings will not be allowed. Hymel ex rel. Hymel v. Thomas, 758 So.2d at 209; see also Bennett v. Stribling, 96-1012 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/27/97), 694 So.2d 991, 993.
At trial, the testimony concerning Williams' employment history or wage earnings history was scarce. The only testimony presented concerning Williams' employment was Williams' limited testimony that, at the time of the accident, he worked at a "paint" business, Technical Coating Services, making $13.00 an hour and working forty "plus some" hours a week. Williams did not testify as to his job title, what his job duties entailed, or how long he had worked at Technical Coating Services or generally in that field. No testimony from his employer or co-workers was presented and no employment records, tax records, paycheck stubs, or any other documentary evidence was introduced into evidence to corroborate Williams' limited testimony. Although Williams' sister testified, generally and briefly, that Williams was a hard-worker who had "always worked," she did not testify to any specifics concerning Williams' employment history (such as how long he had been with his employer at the time of the accident or any history of other previous employment or anticipated future employment).
On appeal, Williams contends that the jury could have considered the testimony of Jonathan Stoltz, the C.P.A. retained by co-plaintiff Allen, to assist the jury in a determination of Williams' future wage loss calculation. Jonathan Stoltz, C.P.A., testified at trial during Allen's case-in-chief that he was retained to "come to court today and give calculations concerning Mr. Allen's lost wages and future medical costs." He did not have any knowledge of Williams' employment history or capabilities (and neither did the jury), and did not opine on Williams' work life capacity or expectancy. He was not questioned at trial on any of those issues as they pertain to Williams.
The jury was presented with minimal information concerning Williams' employment history and was provided no testimony or evidence to show Williams' specific job duties or to prove that he would have continued to work in the same field or position for the remainder of his work life expectancy period. Williams asked that the jury be permitted to calculate his future loss of wages claim by considering Stoltz's testimony presented in Allen's case-in-chief, wherein Stoltz