SAUNDERS, Judge.
This is a personal injury case wherein the plaintiff contends that she suffered damages from the fall of an improperly installed kitchen light fixture on August 19, 2002. The defendants contend that the plaintiff failed to carry her burden to prove that this accident occurred or, alternatively, that she was injured by the falling fixture.
Two separate jury trials were completed. In both, a compound jury interrogatory asked whether the plaintiff carried her burden to prove that an accident occurred that injured her. The jury's negative response in both trials left this court with an inability to determine the jury's intent. As such, we vacated the jury's verdict, found the record before us to be complete, conducted a de novo review of that record, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
On August 19, 2002, Patricia Bourque (Bourque), after returning home from work, was ironing in her kitchen. Present in the home were Bourque's now former husband, Jerry, and Ronald Lynn Smith, a family friend.
Donald Lack, owner of Lack Construction, personally installed the fixture. According to Donald Lack, he was helped in installing the fixture by a carpenter, Danny Moore; however, Moore does not remember helping Donald Lack install said fixture. After some difficulty in installing the fixture, it was eventually installed using two toggle bolts.
Donald Lack testified that he is certain that the spring-loaded wings of the toggle bolt engaged because he heard them do so. He did not visually inspect whether they engaged because a new layer of insulation had been laid on the ceiling where he was installing the fixture. This layer of insulation would block the view of anyone looking to see if the wings of the toggle bolt had indeed engaged. Therefore, according to Donald Lack, he performed a test whereby he shakes the fixture to ensure that it has been installed sufficiently.
According to Bourque, Jerry, and Smith, while Bourque was ironing, the fixture fell from the ceiling, struck Bourque on the right side of her head, knocked her unconscious, and caused her to fall and injure her head, neck, low back, and shoulder. Jerry and Smith were talking in the living room of the house and could not actually see Bourque ironing. They both contend that they heard a loud noise and rushed to the kitchen to find Bourque lying on the ground and the fixture hanging by its wiring.
Once she became oriented, according to the testimony of Bourque and Jerry, Bourque refused to go to the hospital in hopes that any injuries she had from the falling fixture were minor. However, coincidentally, later that evening, Bourque's lips and face began to swell. Bourque did not attribute this swelling to any injury from the fixture striking her because the area of the swelling was different from where the fixture had struck her. Because Bourque became frighteningly concerned that the swelling would progress so as to interrupt her breathing, she went to the emergency room. The emergency room physician diagnosed her with angioedema, an allergic reaction likely due to her blood pressure medicine. Angioedema usually causes swelling in the face and hands. According to hospital records, Bourque made no mention of the fixture striking her.
Bourque was kept overnight by the hospital and saw her family physician the next day and was released to go home. Jerry contends that he told the family physician about the fixture striking Bourque that morning. However, the physician had no recollection of that conversation, nor did he document Jerry's alleged report of the incident to him, as he was focused on the medical issue that hospitalized Bourque, angioedema.
Approximately a month transpires wherein, according to Bourque's boss, Bourque's physical condition worsened. At the behest of her boss, Bourque sought medical treatment for pain and suffering she contends resulted from the fixture striking her on August 19, 2002.
Bourque filed suit against Lack Construction, Donald Lack, and Essex Insurance Company (collectively Lack) on August 15, 2003. They responded with a general denial and a request for a jury trial. The first jury trial began on June 23, 2008. The case was submitted to the jury on July 3, 2008. The first jury verdict was that Bourque failed to carry her burden of proof that on August 19, 2002, the fixture fell and injured her. Bourque was granted a request for a new trial on November 18, 2008. Thereafter, a second trial commenced on October 18, 2010. The jury in the second trial also found that Bourque had failed to carry her burden to prove that the fixture fell and injured her on August 19, 2002. Bourque then filed this appeal alleging three assignments of error. Lack answered and alleged a single assignment of error.
As a preliminary matter, prior to any discussion of the assignments of error raised by either party, we must first address what weight, if any, we should give to the jury's verdict. Bourque argues in her first two assignments of error that this court should totally disregard the jury's verdict and perform a de novo review of the record because the trial court erroneously allowed Lack's expert, J.P. "Sonny" Launey, to testify. According to Bourque, Launey's testimony tainted the jury's verdict. Moreover, Bourque argues that the jury erred in failing to find that Lack was at fault.
Lack argues that the trial court properly allowed Launey to testify and that this court should perform a manifest error review of the facts found by the jury. Lack contends that because both juries apparently reached both the issue of whether an accident occurred and whether Bourque was injured, this court should review those findings under the well-settled manifest error standard of review as found in Stobart v. State, through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993).
This court, in Lewis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 546 So.2d 267, 274 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), stated the following:
It is clear from the record that Bourque did not object to this jury instruction in either trial. Normally, when a party fails to object to jury charges on the trial level, the right to have appellate review of that jury charge is waived. Libersat v. J & K Trucking, Inc., 00-192 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/11/00), 772 So.2d 173, writ denied, 01-458 (La.4/12/01), 789 So.2d 598. However, when a jury charge contains a "plain and fundamental error," appellate review is not prohibited. Beard v. Coregis Ins. Co., 07-314, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/17/07), 968 So.2d 278, 282 (citing Campbell v. Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 1 Caldwell Parish, 37,876 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d 338, writ denied, 04-69 (La.3/19/04), 869 So.2d 852).
In the case before us, for both the first and second trials, the jury only answered the first interrogatory. It read:
In both trials, the jury selected "NO." Standing alone, the interrogatory, while a compound question, is not confusing. However, the interrogatory, coupled with the negative response, renders it impossible for this court to determine the jury's intent or whether a valid verdict was reached. Thus, we find that this jury instruction contains a "plain and fundamental error." Id.
The interrogatory asks both whether the jury found that an accident happened and, if so, whether that accident injured Bourque. When the jury answered the interrogatory in the negative, it created multiple problems that hinder this court's review of the case.
The jury could have answered as it did based upon a finding that an accident occurred, but Bourque was not injured because of that accident. However, it also could have answered as it did based upon a finding that no accident occurred at all. Thus, while the manifest error standard of review would apply the finding of facts made by the jury, this court cannot determine what fact the jury actually found.
Additionally, we are unable to determine if the jury even considered whether the accident caused any injuries to Bourque. Therefore, with regards Bourque's assignment of error number three, we cannot conclude if the applicable standard of review on this issue is de novo per LeBlanc v. Stevenson, 00-157 (La.10/17/00), 770 So.2d 766, or manifest error per Stobart, 617 So.2d 880.
A final scenario could have also resulted from the compound interrogatory and negative response. That scenario is that some members of the jury, i.e. less than nine, could have found that no accident occurred while others could have found that an accident occurred, but Bourque was not injured in that accident.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1797(B) (emphasis added) states, "[i]f trial is by a jury of twelve, nine of the jurors must concur to render a verdict unless the parties stipulate otherwise." Here, the jury included twelve members, and there was no stipulation that less than nine jurors was acceptable to render a verdict.
We cannot determine from the record if nine jurors concurred on any finding of fact. Thus, this court cannot ascertain
Accordingly, we find that no weight should be given to the jury's verdict. The compound jury interrogatory and negative response render it impossible for this court to determine the jury's intent or even whether the jury reached a valid verdict. As such, it contains a "plain and fundamental error." Beard, 968 So.2d at 282.
Next, we must decide whether to remand the case for a third jury trial or render a judgment on the record. We find that rendering judgment is appropriate.
"The appellate court shall render any judgment which is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal." La.Code Civ.P. art. 2164. The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Xerox Corp., 254 La. 182, 320 So.2d 163, 165-66 (1975) (citations and footnote omitted), stated the following:
Two full trials on the merits are contained in the voluminous record before us. Both parties have submitted numerous exhibits and testimonies, and neither party suggests that any other relevant evidence is outstanding. Therefore, we will conduct a de novo review of the record to fully adjudicate this case.
In this case, Bourque brought a negligence action against Lack under La.Civ. Code art. 2315(A). She based her claim on an allegation that Donald Lack's installation of the fixture was faulty and that faulty installation was both a cause-in-fact of the kitchen light falling and striking her and a legal cause of her injuries.
Louisiana Civil Code 2315(A) states, "[e]very act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it." The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So.2d 1032, 1041 (La.1991), stated the following:
Prior to conducting a duty/risk analysis, we must first make two findings of fact. The first is whether Bourque carried her burden to prove that an accident happened. The second is how Donald Lack actually installed the fixture.
Jerry, Bourque's former husband and not a party to this litigation, corroborated her testimony. An excerpt of his testimony is as follows:
Defendant's Exhibit 16 is a letter dictated by Jerry that states, "[t]he work done by Donald Lack Construction was so bad that on Aug. 10, 2002 the fluorescent light in the kitchen fell out and hit my wife on the right side of her head [and caused] a black eye and her right side of her forehead to swell." Jerry clarified the accident date alluded to in the letter. He testified that, unbeknownst to him, the alleged accident date was incorrect due to a typographical error made by his son, the typist of the letter. According to Jerry, the date of the letter, "Aug. 10, 2002" should have been August 19, 2002. Jerry's testimony on this issue is as follows:
Ronald Lynn Smith, who was present the night of the alleged accident and is of no relation to Bourque, testified via deposition to the following:
Nicky Priola, president of Priola Construction, was Bourque's employer at the time of the alleged accident. He testified to the following:
All four of these testimonies corroborate one another. Thus, in the record before us, we have three different testimonies that an accident occurred on August 19, 2002, and we have Bourque's employer testifying to Bourque's reputation for veracity and to seeing evidence of the accident on Bourque face. Further, there are exhibits in the record of pictures taken by Jerry dated August 20, 2002, that depict the fixture the day after it allegedly fell. Those pictures show the spring-loaded toggle bolt wings, in an open position, still attached to the threaded bolts.
The only evidence in the record that tends to show that no accident occurred is the fact that neither Bourque nor Jerry told the hospital staff about the fixture
Dr. David Dietz, as well as every other physician that testified in this case, was questioned about no mention of the fixture hitting Bourque when she went to the emergency room that night for angioedema. While some physicians found it odd when questioned by Lack's counsel, most responded that they understood its absence due to Bourque's appearance in the emergency room for angioedema rather than orthopedic injuries when informed of this fact by Bourque's counsel. Dr. Dietz was especially insightful on this issue when he was questioned by Lack's counsel. His testimony on this issue follows:
Given this testimony, the testimonies above, and the numerous positive references from disinterested parties in the record to Bourque's character, we find that Bourque has carried her burden of proof on this issue. A contrary finding would require this court to determine that three witnesses collaborated on the creation of a story that the fixture fell and hit Bourque. In furtherance of this creation, this court would also have to find that Bourque staged the pictures in the record after having unscrewed the threaded bolts and retrieving the spring-loaded wings in the attic despite Lack's testimony he did not check in that attic to see if the toggle bolts had been properly installed because he had recently sprayed a thick layer of insulation on top of the sheetrock ceiling. Finally, to give credence to Lack's postulation, we would have to find that Bourque lied not only to Priola about the origins of facial bruises that Priola observed two days after the accident, but also to each and every physician that treated her over a nearly ten-year period. This court cannot do so. At least one, and arguably two of the three persons present when the fixture fell are not interested parties to this litigation and have no incentive to concoct such a tale. Moreover, the overwhelming weight of the evidence in the record is that Bourque is an honest individual, and there is no evidence in the record that any of the other witnesses that corroborated Bourque's testimony are not truthful. As such, we find that an accident occurred on August 19, 2002, wherein the fixture fell and struck Bourque on the right side of her head and knocked her unconscious. Further, we find that the pictures taken by Jerry on
Given these findings, we must now make the second finding of fact as to how Lack's actually installed the kitchen light. This is a prerequisite to any duty/risk analysis, as, clearly, we must determine Lack's conduct, through its employee, Donald Lack, prior to subjecting that conduct to the analysis annunciated in Roberts.
Donald Lack is a carpenter and employee of Lack who installed the kitchen light fixture. What parts were used to install the fixture are not in dispute. A toggle bolt
Donald Lack testified during Lack's presentation of evidence as to how they installed the light fixture, to the following:
Thereafter, Donald Lack gave a lengthy, detailed description of how to find where to mark the ceiling and, eventually, drill the holes. Following this description, he testified:
Donald Lack then testifies that after tightening the threaded bolts of the toggle bolts, the fixture is snug to the ceiling. Thereafter, the following exchange took place:
Next, Donald Lack testified that he connected the wires from the attic to the light, placed the cover around the ballast of the light, inserted the bulbs in the light, and, finally, attached the lens cover to the light. His testimony regarding each of these actions was coupled with an assertion that the fixture did not fall or show signs of being loose.
In summation, Donald Lack testified to his certainty of hearing and feeling the spring-loaded wings of the toggle bolt snap open above the sheetrock on his side of the installation. He also claims to have heard the wings of the toggle bolt snap open when Danny Moore installed the toggle bolt on the other side. This testimony is not supported by the photographic evidence, nor is it supported by the expert testimony when coupled with our rejection of Lack's postulation of a staged accident.
The pictures taken by Jerry the day after the light fell depict round holes in the ceiling where the toggle bolts had been installed. Logic dictates, and all expert testimony in this case agrees, that barring the spring-loaded wings being unscrewed from the threaded bolts of the toggle bolts, if the toggle bolt wings had snapped into place as Donald Lack testified, the two holes depicted could not exist in this condition. Rather, the toggle bolt wings, if snapped into position, would have made much larger and jagged holes when they passed through the sheetrock as the fixture fell.
Above, we rebuked the possibility of the toggle bolts being unscrewed to stage an accident. However, another factor that this court must consider in making its finding of how Donald Lack actually installed the toggle bolts is that the fixture remained in place for approximately five months prior to the accident. Jerry testified that on one occasion during that five month span he adjusted the bulbs in a successful effort to alleviate an illumination problem with the fixture. He described the force he exerted on the fixture as minimal when responding to questions about the bulb adjustment. Further, Bourque presented experts who opined that the fixture could have stayed in position for that time, regardless of bulb adjustment,
A final consideration is Donald Lack's testimony that he heard and felt the spring-loaded wings of the toggle bolts snap into place and that he performed a "grab and shake" test on the light to which it passed. While this testimony is uncontested, it is not corroborated. The only person who could have done so, Danny Moore, does not remember installing the fixture. Further, Donald Lack has a vested interest in making this assertion.
Therefore, we find as fact that Donald Lack did not install the toggle bolts to where the spring-loaded wings snapped into position above the sheetrock ceiling as it is the only plausible explanation given the evidence in the record. Defendant's Exhibit 12 depicts the spring-loaded wings as still attached to the threaded bolts of the toggle bolts once the fixture fell. Those spring-loaded wings, when no longer jammed into the drilled holes, functioned correctly, as they were engaged. Additionally, we have testimony from Donald Lack that he did not check in the attic to see if the spring-loaded wings of the toggle bolts had engaged because of a new layer of insulation that he laid prior to installing the fixture. Finally, it is not in dispute that Donald Lack did not use a Romex connector or Romex staples to secure the wire of the light. As such, we will subject Donald Lack's conduct to the duty/risk analysis of Roberts.
It is undisputed that pinching the spring-loaded wings of toggle bolts and jamming them into drilled holes was a cause-in-fact of the fixture falling and the injuries, if any, that Bourque suffered as a result. Additionally, it is not in dispute that the fixture would not have struck Bourque had Donald Lack used a Romex connector or Romex staples within twelve inches of the fixture. Thus, the installation of each toggle bolt and the failure to use a Romex connector or Romex staples to fasten the wire to a ceiling joist within twelve inches of the fixture are all substantial factors in bringing about the harm to Bourque.
Next, we must determine if Lack owed a duty to Bourque. Lack, as the employer of both Donald Lack and Danny Moore, is responsible for their acts. La. Civ.Code.art. 2320. Contractors are bound to warrant their work and are responsible for damages stemming from defective installation. La.Civ.Code art. 2769. Accordingly, Lack, as contractor, has a duty to Bourque to provide proper workmanship or installation.
Having found that Lack's acts, through its employees, were a cause-in-fact of any injuries that Bourque sustained from the fixture falling and that Lack owed a duty to Bourque, we must now determine whether that duty was breached. All testimony, expert and otherwise, agrees that jamming the pinched wings of a toggle bolt into drilled holes is not proper technique for the use of toggle bolts to hang the kitchen fixture. Thus, Lack, through Donald Lack and/or Danny Moore, breached its duty to Bourque by using this improper installation method.
The parties dispute whether the use of a Romex connector and Romex staples was required by the National Electrical Code (NEC) on a residential property in Calcasieu Parish in 2002, and whether Donald Lack's failure to use them was a breach of Lack's duty to Bourque. Donald Lack testified that the use of these items was
This court, in Nicholson v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury, 96-314, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/96), 685 So.2d 507, 511, discussed the inquiry necessary in analyzing legal cause wherein we stated:
In the case before us, all expert testimony in the record is that the purpose of a Romex connector is to protect the wires from having their protective sheaths removed due to scraping against the edge of a junction box. Therefore, the scope of the protection afforded by one's duty to use a Romex connector does not include the risk of the fixture falling. Rather, it includes any damage caused as a result of the Romex wire being scraped by a junction box, i.e., personal and property damage caused by an electrical fire or a shock suffered as a result of the exposed wire.
Likewise, the testimony in the record indicates that the purpose for using Romex staples to attach the Romex wiring to a ceiling joist or other structure is to prevent the wire from sagging or to prevent a person from using the wire to hang items. As such, any injury Bourque suffers from a falling fixture is also outside the scope of any duty to use Romex staples.
The result is different in analyzing Lack's failure to properly install the toggle bolts. All testimony in the record is uniform that the specific purpose of toggle bolts in this installation is to keep the fixture attached to the ceiling. As such, Bourque's injuries from a falling fixture directly fall within the scope of Lack's duty, which it breached, to properly install the fixture.
Having made a determination that Lack breached its duty to Bourque and her harm as a result of that breach in encompassed in that duty, we must now look to the medical evidence in the record to find what injuries, if any, that Bourque carried her burden to prove were caused by the fixture striking her in the head. There is no dispute in the medical evidence that Bourque suffered from degenerative disc disease prior to the accident. Further, there is no dispute that Bourque underwent a back surgery for a herniated disc at the L5-S1 level on July 20, 1990. Finally, there is no dispute that Bourque intermittently suffered migraine headaches, neck pain, and back pain prior to the August 19, 2002 accident.
According to Bourque's testimony, she felt that any injuries she sought treatment for during the emergency room visit on August 19, 2002, were more likely than not related to a reaction to her blood pressure medication, Altace, rather than to any injury caused by the fixture striking her. This was also the opinion of Dr. Kyle James, the emergency room physician that saw Bourque on August 19, 2002, and the opinion of Dr. Michael Traub, Bourque's family physician that saw her the next day. Thus, Bourque cannot recover from Lack for the medical bills incurred during that overnight hospital stay, nor any pain and suffering as a result of the angioedema, nor economic losses incurred from that stay, i.e., the day of work she missed that next day.
Bourque was treated for headaches by Dr. Fayez Shamieh, a neurologist. Although other physicians were questioned regarding Bourque's headaches, they all deferred to Dr. Shamieh and his findings. When questioned about Bourque's character as a patient, Dr. Shamieh testified to the following:
Dr. Shamieh was also asked about Bourque's headaches that she suffered prior to the August 19, 2002 accident. On this issue, he testified:
Lack's counsel then questioned Dr. Shamieh. In that questioning, counsel showed Dr. Shamieh various medical records indicating that Bourque had suffered headaches prior to the accident. Thereafter, on redirect examination, Dr. Shamieh testified to the following:
Given the testimony above, we find that Bourque has carried her burden to prove that the severe and constant headaches she suffers are causally related to the August 19, 2002 accident. We base this finding on Dr. Shamieh's endorsement of Bourque's character, on Bourque's testimony that differentiates the preexisting headaches from the post-accident headaches, and Dr. Shamieh's finding that those post-accident headaches are more probably than not related to the light falling and striking Bourque.
Several physicians relayed opinions regarding Bourque's neck pain. They were Drs. Shamieh, Jeffrey Kozak, Michael McCann, and Robert Bernauer. Dr. Shamieh related Bourque's neck pain, along with the headaches, to the accident.
Dr. Jeffrey Kozak, an orthopedic surgeon, saw Bourque regarding her neck pain. Lack points out that Dr. Kozak noted, on one visit, that Bourque showed signs of malingering. While this is accurate, Dr. Kozak testified that in his opinion the one instance malingering that occurred on one test was most likely due to Bourque's depression from marital problems and, thus, not from motivation of secondary gain. Further, Dr. Kozak, once being informed that Bourque requested to return to work just two weeks after her neck surgery, testified to the following regarding his impression of Bourque and the causation of her neck and lower back pain:
Dr. Michael McCann, whose primary scope of practice dealt with interventional spinal care, worked with Dr. Kozak treating Bourque both prior to and after the accident. He testified that he injected Bourque's neck in 1997 and that she had 100% relief as a result of those injections. Further, Dr. McCann testified regarding his impression of Bourque and the causation of her neck pain subsequent to the accident as follows:
Finally, Dr. Robert Dale Bernauer, an orthopedic surgeon, performed surgery on Bourque's neck on February 18, 2003. His testimony regarding his treatment of Bourque is as follows:
The summation of these testimonies is that Bourque was an honest patient despite one incident of failing to perform to her best on one office visit to Dr. Kozak. Further, while Bourque had preexisting degenerative disc disease in her cervical discs, it is clear from the testimony above this condition, just prior to the accident, was asymptomatic. Finally, it is the unanimous opinion of the physicians that treated her that this accident caused her neck pain and caused her to have to undergo surgery. Therefore, after reviewing the evidence in the record, we find that Bourque has carried her burden to prove that the neck pain and surgery was causally related to the August 19, 2002 accident.
As seen above, Drs. Bernauer, Kozak, and McCann testified that all of their treatment of Bourque, including her low back pain and subsequent surgeries, were related to the accident. Dr. Bernauer performed low back surgery on Bourque on October 8, 2003. Thereafter, Bourque continued to suffer from low back pain, but Drs. Bernauer, Kozak, and McCann told Bourque that there was nothing more, surgically, they could do to help with the back pain. Bourque sought another
Additionally, Dr. Dietz was questioned about Bourque's preexisting degenerative disc disease by Lack's counsel and how it may have caused the pain she suffered in the neck and low back. Thereafter, on redirect examination, the following exchange transpired:
Finally, on redirect examination, when he was again directly questioned about causation, Dr. Dietz testified:
Given the medical testimony in the record, we find that the fixture striking Bourque was a legal cause of her low back pain and all associated medical treatment she received for that pain. This includes, but is not limited to, the October 8, 2003 surgery and the September 23, 2008 surgery.
Bourque was treated for right shoulder pain by Dr. Gary Gartzman, an orthopedic surgeon who specializes in shoulder surgery. Dr. Gartzman had no independent recollection of Bourque's personality as a patient, however, he performed surgery on Bourque' right shoulder on April 25, 2003. He testified to the following regarding causation:
Lack has not provided any testimony to contradict Dr. Gartzman's opinion. Therefore, given this testimony, we find that Bourque's shoulder pain and surgery were casually related to the August 19, 2002 accident.
Bourque has submitted, through Plaintiffs Exhibit 23, a list of all medical bills incurred. Bourque has carried her burden to prove that she is entitled to any and all medical bills with the exception of any which were incurred due to the emergency room visit on August 19, 2002. We reach this conclusion based on the medical testimony in the record. Accordingly, we render judgment, finding that Bourque is entitled an award of past medical bills in the amount of $452,689.78.
Dr. Dietz was the only physician to testify regarding whether Bourque could work. His testimony on this question is as follows:
Accordingly, we find that Bourque is entitled to economic damages resulting from her inability to work. We will next address what those damages entail.
Dr. Charles Bettinger, an economist who testified on behalf of Bourque, opined that Bourque suffered an economic loss of $537,807.00. Jonathan Stuart Woods, an economist who testified on behalf of Lack, opined that Bourque suffered an economic loss of $121,061.20 on the low end, $138,043.74 on the high end, with a midrange loss of $129,552.47. Both economists'
After considering both experts' opinions and testimony, we render that Bourque is entitled to a total award of $250,000.00. This amount includes Bourque's recovery for loss of wages and benefits, both past and future, and for future medical costs.
The treating physicians consistently and universally testified that Bourque is a truthful, excellent patient whose complaints corresponded to objective medical findings. Further, those physicians opined that the objective medical findings were all caused by the August 19, 2002 accident. These testimonies are not controverted by any testimony in the record.
However, Bourque has a medical history of intermittent migraine headaches, intermittent neck pain, intermittent low back pain, and a prior low back surgery. Further, Bourque also had preexisting degenerative disc disease.
We note that, under Louisiana law, Bourque is entitled to compensation for aggravation of her preexisting conditions while no compensation can be made for the existence of those preexisting conditions. This distinction, while subtle, is significant, and we have taken it into account rendering judgment in this case. While those preexisting conditions were present, Bourque was engaging in a relatively normal life prior to this accident. The record is voluminous and clearly indicates that this lady has suffered and will continue to suffer greatly. She has undergone four surgical procedures, and her potential for enjoyment of life is greatly diminished. Accordingly, after a thorough review of the record, we render judgment, finding that Bourque is entitled to a total of $500,000.00 for the aggravation of her preexisting medical conditions and the loss of enjoyment of her life, both past and future.
Bourque, in her first assignment of error, alleges that the trial court erred in allowing defense expert, J.P. "Sonny" Launey to testify. Secondly, Bourque asserts that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's Daubert Motion relative to the testimony of defense expert, J.P. Launey
In both assignments of error, Bourque's requested relief was that this court perform a de novo review of the record without giving any consideration to Launey's expert opinion. We find no error by the trial court in allowing Launey's opinion into evidence. Above, we conducted a de novo review of the record based on the impossibility of determining the jury's intent from the compound jury interrogatory and negative response. We note that when this court did the de novo review, we took into consideration Launey's report because these assignments of error lacked merit.
Finally, in her third assignment of error, Bourque intimates that the jury erred in
Lack, in its sole assignment of error, contends that the trial judge improperly granted Bourque's request for new trial after the matter was initially tried in June/July 2010. The compound jury interrogatory and negative response by the jury occurred in the first trial as well as the second. We found above that this verdict was invalid, as it is impossible for this court to determine what findings of fact, if any, the jury reached. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.
Both parties, Lack Construction and Patricia Bourque, raised assignments of error. Prior to addressing these assignments, this court found it impossible to ascertain the jury's intent with its verdict given the compound interrogatory and negative response. As such, we vacated the jury's verdict.
Next, given that the record was complete, we conducted a de novo review to adjudicate this matter. We found that Patricia Bourque carried her burden to prove that an accident occurred on August 19, 2002, that Donald Lack improperly installed the kitchen light fixture, and that she suffered damages as a result of that improper installation. We rendered judgment that awarded Patricia Bourque $452,689.78 in medical expenses, $250,000.00 in lost wages and future medical expenses, and $500,000.00 in pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. All costs of these proceedings are assessed to Lack Construction, Inc. and Essex Insurance Company.
COOKS, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.
AMY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
EZELL, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
COOKS, J. concurs.
Although I join the majority in concluding a de novo review is warranted in this case, I write separately to further express that I also find the jury's negative response, even if applicable to the accident and cause questions, was manifestly erroneous on both issues considering the evidence presented in the record.
AMY, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority decision. In short, I disagree that the construction of the verdict interrogatory prevents this court from divining the jury's determination. Rather, it seems to me that the interrogatory very clearly reveals that determination. Simply, the jury rejected the plaintiffs' evidence, either in whole or in part, as a jury is permitted to do within the confines of its fact finder role.
Although the parties attribute much of their argument in brief to essentially questioning whether the defendant offered reasonable evidence to establish that no accident or injury occurred, I find that those arguments distort the burden of proof and, instead, urge impermissible re-weighing of the evidence. Of course, it is the plaintiff who must bear the burden of proving his or her case. Given this burden, it is not up to the defendant to present evidence negating the existence of an injury-producing accident.
Here, the plaintiff's evidence, testimonial or otherwise, was not so compelling to require the jury to accept the plaintiffs
To the extent the majority finds the construction of the jury interrogatory erroneous, I find it notable, as a predicate consideration, that the record reveals no objection to the interrogatory now in question. Rather, it was used in both trials and, in a supplemental brief to this court, the defendants assert that the interrogatory was submitted by the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff did not assign any purported problem with the interrogatory as error in her appellant's brief.
For these reasons, I dissent.
EZELL, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons assigned by Judge Amy and for the following reasons.
In this case, there was no objection to the jury instructions at the trial level, the issue was not designated as an assignment of error or argued on appeal, and there was no plain and fundamental error in the jury instructions or in the jury's verdict.
I do not find the jury instructions to be misleading or confusing or so inadequate or incorrect as to preclude the jury from reaching a verdict based on the law and the facts.
For the Court to reverse and render a judgment in this case where none of the factors required were met, I find the majority position unsustainable.
For these reasons, I dissent.
