Biggs v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Biggs v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

152 So. 2d 596, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 1573

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 1, 1963

DocketNo. 9900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 So. 2d 596 (Biggs v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) 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

Biggs v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 152 So. 2d 596, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 1573 (La. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit by plaintiff wife and her husband seeking recovery of damages for personal injury and medical expenses, respectively. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs the defendants have appealed.

This is a companion suit which was consolidated for purposes of trial and appeal with the suit of Mark C. Willis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, et al., La.App., 152 So.2d 593.

The only distinction between these cases would be with respect to the quantum of the award. The judgment appealed from allowed recovery in favor of the plaintiff husband for medical expenses, etc., in the sum of $612.30, and in favor of plaintiff wife in the sum of $4,500.00 for pain and suffering. Our examination of the record has failed to disclose any error in the reasons of the district judge upon which these awards were based. We are of the opinion that they are neither inadequate nor excessive.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

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

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit by plaintiff wife and her husband seeking recovery of damages for personal injury and medical expenses, respectively. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs the defendants have appealed.

This is a companion suit which was consolidated for purposes of trial and appeal with the suit of Mark C. Willis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, et al., La.App., 152 So.2d 593.

The only distinction between these cases would be with respect to the quantum of the award. The judgment appealed from allowed recovery in favor of the plaintiff husband for medical expenses, etc., in the sum of $612.30, and in favor of plaintiff wife in the sum of $4,500.00 for pain and suffering. Our examination of the record has failed to disclose any error in the reasons of the district judge upon which these awards were based. We are of the opinion that they are neither inadequate nor excessive.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 So. 2d 596, 1963 La. App. LEXIS 1573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biggs-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-lactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack