Allen v. Michaud

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Allen v. Michaud

148 So. 495, 1933 La. App. LEXIS 1847

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 5, 1933

DocketNo. 4452.

StatusPublished

This text of 148 So. 495 (Allen v. Michaud) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Michaud, 148 So. 495, 1933 La. App. LEXIS 1847 (La. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

DREW', Judge.

This is a companion suit to Lorena Norris v. S. E. Michaud et al., 148 So. 493, this day decided by this court, and, for the reasons assigned therein, the judgment of the lower court holding defendants liable for damages received by plaintiff is affirmed in ¾1 re; Spects, .except as to the amount of the award.

■ Miss Allen is a young woman twenty-three *496 years of age. She was knocked unconscious and remained in that condition until she arrived at the sanitarium, several miles away. One tooth was knocked completely out and another penetrated into the sinus or antrim. Her lip was cut, and required two stitches to he taken in it. One arm was cut and required seven stitches. Her leg was cut, and required four stitches to be taken in it. There was a discharge from the sinus which continued until the tooth was extracted, when it healed. Four of plaintiff’s front teeth were loosened. She will yet have to have at least one of her :front teeth extracted, which had abscessed at the time of trial. She spent $00 for doctor’s bills, and has not had her teeth” attended to, other than treatment. It is necessary that she have some bridgework done, which will be an additional expense. The teeth will have to be replaced. Plaintiff suffered extreme pain for several weeks until the tooth was extracted from the sinus. For ten days after the accident it was impossible for the dentist to examine her teeth, due to the condition of her mouth, being sore and lacerated.

A young woman who loses three or four teeth and has others damaged by being loosened is serio.usly damaged, and, in Miss Allen’s case, it is shown there is still a slight scar near her lip and one on her arm that will remain through life. The lower court awarded her damages in the sum of $250, Which ,is not more than sufficient to pay her doctor’s' and future dental bills to replace these teeth, not taking into account the pain and suffering she endured through no fault of her own. We think the judgment is inadequate, and that it should be increased to $1,-ooo;

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the lower court be amended by increasing the amount of the award in favor of plaintiff from $250' to $1,-000, and that it be further amended by substituting ás parties defendant Clay W. Beekner and S. Sanford Levy, receivers, ini the stead of and-for the Union Indemnity Company; and, as .amended, that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DREW', Judge.

This is a companion suit to Lorena Norris v. S. E. Michaud et al., 148 So. 493, this day decided by this court, and, for the reasons assigned therein, the judgment of the lower court holding defendants liable for damages received by plaintiff is affirmed in ¾1 re; Spects, .except as to the amount of the award.

■ Miss Allen is a young woman twenty-three *496 years of age. She was knocked unconscious and remained in that condition until she arrived at the sanitarium, several miles away. One tooth was knocked completely out and another penetrated into the sinus or antrim. Her lip was cut, and required two stitches to he taken in it. One arm was cut and required seven stitches. Her leg was cut, and required four stitches to be taken in it. There was a discharge from the sinus which continued until the tooth was extracted, when it healed. Four of plaintiff’s front teeth were loosened. She will yet have to have at least one of her :front teeth extracted, which had abscessed at the time of trial. She spent $00 for doctor’s bills, and has not had her teeth” attended to, other than treatment. It is necessary that she have some bridgework done, which will be an additional expense. The teeth will have to be replaced. Plaintiff suffered extreme pain for several weeks until the tooth was extracted from the sinus. For ten days after the accident it was impossible for the dentist to examine her teeth, due to the condition of her mouth, being sore and lacerated.

A young woman who loses three or four teeth and has others damaged by being loosened is serio.usly damaged, and, in Miss Allen’s case, it is shown there is still a slight scar near her lip and one on her arm that will remain through life. The lower court awarded her damages in the sum of $250, Which ,is not more than sufficient to pay her doctor’s' and future dental bills to replace these teeth, not taking into account the pain and suffering she endured through no fault of her own. We think the judgment is inadequate, and that it should be increased to $1,-ooo;

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the lower court be amended by increasing the amount of the award in favor of plaintiff from $250' to $1,-000, and that it be further amended by substituting ás parties defendant Clay W. Beekner and S. Sanford Levy, receivers, ini the stead of and-for the Union Indemnity Company; and, as .amended, that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 So. 495, 1933 La. App. LEXIS 1847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-michaud-lactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack