Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hosp

18 Citing cases

  1. Guidry v. Lafayette Health Ventures, Inc.

    203 So. 3d 436 (La. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times

    General damages include pain and suffering, inconvenience, the loss of physical enjoyment, and other losses of life or lifestyle that cannot be definitively measured in monetary terms. McGee v. A C And S, Inc., 05–1036 (La.7/10/06), 933 So.2d 770 ; Montgomery v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp., 546 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989). "There is no mechanical rule for determining general damages and the facts and circumstances of each case must control."

  2. Sayre v. PNK (Lake Charles), LLC

    188 So. 3d 428 (La. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 10 times

    L'Auberge sought to have the jury include no more than the rib injuries for under $2,000.00. Montgomery v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp., 546 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 551 So.2d 630 (La.1989), defines and sets forth items to consider in assessing general damages. Montgomery states: “[g]eneral damages are those which may not be fixed with pecuniary exactitude; they instead involve mental or physical pain or suffering, inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification, or physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be definitively measured in monetary terms.”

  3. Guidry v. Lafayette Health Ventures, Inc.

    191 So. 3d 1 (La. Ct. App. 2015)

    General damages include pain and suffering, inconvenience, the loss of physical enjoyment, and other losses of life or lifestyle that cannot be definitively measured in monetary terms. McGee v. A C and S, Inc., 05–1036 (La.7/10/06), 933 So.2d 770 ; Montgomery v. Opelousas Gen'l Hosp., 546 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989). “There is no mechanical rule for determining general damages and the facts and circumstances of each case must control.”

  4. Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.

    158 So. 3d 41 (La. Ct. App. 2015)

    Instead, general damage awards involve mental and physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of intellectual gratification and physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be definitely measured in monetary terms. Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hospital, 546 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989). The factors to be considered in assessing quantum for pain and suffering are severity and duration.

  5. Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.

    158 So. 3d 41 (La. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Instead, general damage awards involve mental and physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of intellectual gratification and physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be definitely measured in monetary terms. Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hospital, 546 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989). The factors to be considered in assessing quantum for pain and suffering are severity and duration.

  6. Bailey v. LeBlanc

    151 So. 3d 1004 (La. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 4 times
    In Bailey v. Leblanc, 151 So.3d at 1005, 1013, a 22-year-old woman, five months into a high-risk pregnancy, sustained neck and back sprains in an automobile accident, causing pain throughout her pregnancy and after her child’s birth.

    General damages include both mental and physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, the loss of physical enjoyment, and other losses of life or lifestyle that cannot be definitively measured in monetary terms. McGee v. A C AND S, Inc., 05–1036 (La.7/10/06), 933 So.2d 770 ; Montgomery v. Opelousas Gen'l Hosp., 546 So.2d 621, 623 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989). There is no mechanical rule for determining general damages and the facts and circumstances of each case must control.

  7. Simon v. Reel

    867 So. 2d 174 (La. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times
    In Simon v. Reel, 03–932, (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/3/04), 867 So.2d 174, we discussed the law applicable to an award for medical costs and general damages.

    Instead, general damage awards involve mental and physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of intellectual gratification and physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be definitely measured in monetary terms. Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hospital, 546 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989). The factors to be considered in assessing quantum for pain and suffering are severity and duration.

  8. Saucier v. Players Lake

    751 So. 2d 312 (La. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    Holding federal maritime law applicable to false arrest claim arising from incident on gaming boat

    We will discuss damages in relation to the excessive force claim. Montgomery v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp., 546 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 551 So.2d 630 (La. 1989), defines and sets forth items to consider in assessing general damages. Montgomery states: "[g]eneral damages are those which may not be fixed with pecuniary exactitude; they instead involve mental or physical pain or suffering, inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification, or physical enjoyment, or other losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be definitively measured in monetary terms."

  9. Taylor v. Premier Ins. Ma.

    742 So. 2d 35 (La. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 10 times

    "General damages" are those which cannot be fixed pecuniary exactitude; they involve mental or physical pain or suffering, inconvenience, loss of intellectual gratification, or other losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be definitively measured in monetary terms. Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hospital, 546 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 551 So.2d 630 (La. 1989). In reviewing general damage awards, an appellate court must accord much deference to the trial judge or jury. Andrus v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 95-0801 (La. 3/22/96), 670 So.2d 1206. The role of an appellate court in reviewing awards of general damages is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trial court.

  10. Broussard v. Romero

    691 So. 2d 1265 (La. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    In Broussard, the only evidence of the plaintiff's disability was from her own testimony and that of her husband and her daughter.

    The question on appeal is not whether a different award may have been more appropriate, but whether the trial court's award can be reasonably supported by the record. Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hosp., 546 So.2d 621 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 551 So.2d 630 (La. 1989) (and cases cited therein). Appellate review of general damage awards involves a two step process.