Opinion
No. 2024-C-00426
06-19-2024
Charles LEVINE v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Michael A. Couvillion, in His Capacity as Sheriff of Vermilion Parish, et al. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company, et al.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket. Crichton, J., concurs and assigns reasons. Crain, J., would grant in part to address collateral source only.
Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court Number(s) 107696-E c/w 107785-A, Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) 23-488 c/w 23-489.
1Writ application denied.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
Crichton, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., would grant in part to address collateral source only.
CRICHTON, J., concurs and assigns reasons:
1I concur in the denial of the writ application filed by defendants Berkshire Hathaway Insurance Company, LLC, Universal Environmental Services, LLC, and Renauldo Hawkins. However, I write separately to highlight the relevance of this Court’s recent rulings expounding on the paramount role of juries in our legal system. Specifically, we have noted that "[c]onfidence in juries, and their ability to handle and decide difficult, factual questions, is reflected in the legislature’s recent amendment[s]" to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.’ " Eastman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 23-1107, p. 8 (La. 5/10/24), 384 So.3d 865, 872, citing CD v. SC, 22-00961, p. 4, n. 5 (La. 6/1/23), 366 So. 3d 1245, 1249. We hold juries, as the 2triers of fact, "in high regard and accord them great deference in their decisions.’ " Eastman, 23-1107, p. 8, 384 So. 3d at 872, quoting CD, 22-00961, p. 4, n. 5, 366 So. 3d at 1249. In this instance, the jury heard numerous witnesses that testified to plaintiff’s previous active personal life and involvement in the community as well as expert witnesses who explained the depth and seriousness of plaintiff’s medical issues arising from this accident. Specifically, plaintiff, a previously healthy and fit single father, will never work as a law enforcement officer again because of the severe and debilitating injuries he sustained in this accident. Plaintiff was an avid weight-lifter prior to the accident but now cannot lift more than ten pounds. Plaintiff has undergone four surgeries: a lumbar fusion, an implantation of a spinal cord stimulator, a shoulder surgery, and a cervical fusion. The jury also heard the devastating testimony that because of his injuries, this once robust and gregarious plaintiff suffers from severe depression and suicidal thoughts.
In 2020, the Legislature passed Act No. 37, which reduced the jury threshold from $50,000 to $10,000. Article 1732(1) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure now provides:
A trial by jury shall not be available in:
(1) A suit where the amount of no individual petitioner’s cause of action exceeds ten thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs, except as follows:
(a) If an individual petitioner stipulates or otherwise judicially admits sixty days or more prior to trial that the amount of the individual petitioner's cause of action does not exceed ten thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs, a defendant shall not be entitled to a trial by jury.
(b) If an individual petitioner stipulates or otherwise judicially admits for the first time less than sixty days prior to trial that the amount of the individual petitioner's cause of action does not exceed ten thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs, any other party may retain the right to a trial by jury if that party is entitled to a trial by jury pursuant to this Article and has otherwise complied with the procedural requirements for obtaining a trial by jury.
(c) Notwithstanding Subsubparagraphs (a) and (b) of this Subparagraph, if, as a result of a compromise or dismissal of one or more claims or parties which occurs less than sixty days prior to trial, an individual petitioner stipulates or otherwise judicially admits that the amount of the individual petitioner’s cause of action does not exceed ten thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs, a defendant shall not be entitled to a trial by jury.
This Court further stated:
In our justice system, juries bear an important responsibility. "Citizen participation in the disposition of civil cases has been an important, indeed central, and perhaps critical, element in the development of the American legal system…. The system has served many purposes, but its enduring purpose has been to secure a greater measure of trust in judicial institutions." Paul D. Carrington, The Civil Jury and American Democracy, 2003 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law Vol. 13:79, pp. 79-94. This is one reason juries should be given much deference in their decisions. As this Court has previously noted, "[w]e give great deference to the trial court because it observes and participates in the live presentation, while the appellate court merely reviews the cold transcript." Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 14-2592, p. 10 (La. 12/8/15), 193 So.3d 1110, 1116-17.
Id.
3Defendants notably presented no expert witnesses to contradict plaintiff’s experts. The jury thereafter arrived at a $5,000,000 damage award – one that, as this Court has consistently found, is entitled to great deference. However, the trial court signed a final judgment reducing that award to $3,500,000. Rejecting the defendants’ assertion that the general damage award was grossly excessive, the court of appeal ultimately reversed the trial court’s judgment and reinstated the jury’s award of $5,000,000. Considering the evidence in this case and noting the public policy set forth by our legislature supporting its confidence in the wisdom of a jury’s verdict, I agree with that conclusion. In my view, based on the evidence adduced, the jury herein performed its obligation and rendered a just verdict that is fully supported by the record. As noted herein, the legislature has made clear its faith in the jury system, and it performed as designed under the troubling facts in this case. Accordingly, in line with our jurisprudence and the legislature’s recent enactments, I cast my vote to deny the defendants’ writ application.
The assessment of quantum, or the appropriate amount of damages, by a trial judge or by a jury is a determination of fact entitled to great deference on review. Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-492, p. 6 (La. 10/17/00), 774 So. 2d 70,. 74. See also Andrus v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 95-801, p. 8 (La. 3/22/96), 670 So. 2d 1206, 1210 ("In appellate review of general damage awards, the court must accord much discretion to the trial court judge or jury.")