Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog
Patricia Spann’s life took a dramatic turn when she lost control of her Chevrolet Cobalt, resulting in a severe accident that left her with multiple fractures and a lengthy hospital stay. She believed the cause of the accident was a faulty power steering system, recently replaced by Gerry Lane Chevrolet as part of a recall. Spann sued Gerry Lane, alleging negligence in the repair and the hiring and training of their mechanics.
The legal journey was not a smooth one. Initially, the trial court dismissed Spann’s case, granting Gerry Lane’s motion for summary judgment due to a perceived lack of evidence. However, Spann fought back, securing a new trial based on additional evidence from her expert witness.
This expert, a mechanical engineer, had conducted multiple inspections of Spann’s car, ultimately concluding that the power steering system failed due to improper installation. Gerry Lane challenged the admissibility of this expert’s testimony, arguing it lacked scientific basis and that some inspections violated a court order. However, the court allowed the testimony, stating that challenges to the expert’s conclusions were about the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The court also determined that while the inspections without the defendants present were “troubling,” there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing.
At trial, a jury found Gerry Lane partially at fault for the accident and awarded Spann damages for medical expenses and lost wages. However, they did not award any damages for pain and suffering, a decision that Spann challenged. The trial court agreed with Spann, finding the jury’s verdict inconsistent. It granted a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV), significantly increasing the damages to include a substantial amount for pain and suffering. (see La. C.C.P. art. 1811).
Gerry Lane appealed, arguing several points, including the admissibility of the expert’s testimony, the evidence from the inspections, the granting of a new trial, and the large increase in damages awarded by the JNOV.
The appeals court carefully reviewed the evidence and legal arguments. It upheld the trial court’s decisions regarding the expert testimony, the evidence from the inspections, and the new trial. However, while it agreed that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent and a JNOV was warranted, it found the trial court’s increase in damages to be excessive. The appeals court reduced the additional award for pain and suffering, striking a balance between recognizing Spann’s injuries and respecting the jury’s initial findings.
This case underscores several important legal concepts. It highlights the critical role of expert witnesses in complex cases, particularly when technical or scientific issues are involved. It also emphasizes the importance of adhering to court orders and the potential consequences of violating them, even if unintentional.
Furthermore, the case demonstrates the power of a JNOV to correct an inconsistent or unjust jury verdict. However, it also shows that even when a JNOV is granted, the court’s discretion in awarding damages is not unlimited and must be based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence.
Spann v. Gerry Lane serves as a reminder that the legal process can be long and complex, with multiple layers of review and potential for appeals. It underscores the importance of seeking experienced legal counsel to navigate these complexities and ensure that justice is served.
Additional Sources:PATRICIA SPANN VERSUS GERRY LANE ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A GERRY LANE CHEVROLET, ABC AND XYZ
Written by Berniard Law Firm
Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Increase of Jury Awards: How can an Appeal Affect a Jury’s Award for Mental and Physical Pain and Suffering? and Allocating Damages in Wrongful Death Cases: Navigating the High Standard of JNOV Motion