Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagestrialmotionsustained

plaintiffdamagestrialmotionsustainedappellee

Related Cases

Fleischmann v. Hanover Ins. Co., 470 So.2d 216

Facts

This case involves a personal injury claim brought by Edwin R. Fleischmann, Jr. on behalf of his minor son, Robert, who was injured in a bicycle accident. On September 8, 1982, Robert was riding his bicycle in New Orleans when a car door opened in front of him, causing a collision. As a result of the accident, Robert sustained knee damage and was unable to run at his previous level, impacting his aspirations for an athletic scholarship. The jury awarded him $100,000 in damages, which was later reduced to $72,000 due to a finding of 28% fault on his part.

On September 8, 1982 at approximately 7:50 a.m., Robert Fleischmann, plaintiff-appellee, was riding his bicycle, river bound, on Jefferson Avenue in New Orleans. As he approached the intersection of Danneel Street a car door opened directly in front of him and a collision ensued. Appellee was thrown from his bicycle, landing on his hands and knees. He suffered residual knee damage as a result of the accident.

Issue

Did the trial court err in qualifying Dr. Charles L. Johnson as an expert in the sub-specialty of 'sports medicine' and in denying the Motion for Remittitur?

Rule

A trial judge may grant a motion for remittitur only if he believes the jury's award is so excessive that it warrants a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The court must determine whether the jury abused its discretion in making the award.

Trial judge may grant a motion for remittitur only where he is of opinion that the award of the jury is so excessive as to warrant a new trial solely on issue of damages. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1814.

Analysis

In this case, the trial court did not err in qualifying Dr. Johnson as an expert because he had significant experience in orthopedic surgery and had performed numerous orthroscopies. The court found that the jury's award of damages was not excessive given Robert's injuries and the impact on his future athletic and academic aspirations. The trial court's denial of the Motion for Remittitur was upheld as the jury's decision was within their discretion.

Under these circumstances we cannot say that the trier of fact abused its much discretion in making its award. Absent such abuse, we must find that the award was not excessive and the trial court was correct in denying the Motion for Remittitur.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the qualification of the expert or in the jury's award of damages.

For the foregoing reasons the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case is Edwin R. Fleischmann, Jr., representing his son Robert. The court upheld the jury's award of damages, recognizing the significant impact of Robert's injuries on his athletic and academic future. The court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the Motion for Remittitur, affirming that the damages awarded were appropriate given the circumstances.

The prevailing party in this case is Edwin R. Fleischmann, Jr., on behalf of his minor son Robert, for injuries Robert sustained in an accident.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Brocail v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 268 S.W.3d 90

Fowler v. Tyler Independent School Dist., 232 S.W.3d 335, 224 Ed. Law Rep. 513

Ramos v. Midland College, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 10841724

Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173, 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 381, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9607

Butler v. Oak Creek-Franklin School Dist., 172 F.Supp.2d 1102, 159 Ed. Law Rep. 166