Bourque v. Essex Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Bourque v. Essex Insurance Co.

90 So. 3d 1031, 2012 WL 2161165, 2012 La. LEXIS 1726

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 15, 2012

DocketNo. 2012-C-0810

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 So. 3d 1031 (Bourque v. Essex Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bourque v. Essex Insurance Co., 90 So. 3d 1031, 2012 WL 2161165, 2012 La. LEXIS 1726 (La. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

|!After a trial by jury, the jury responded in the negative to the following interrogatory: “[d]o you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an accident occurred on or about August 19, 2002, injuring the plaintiff, Patricia Bo-urque?” Plaintiff appealed. Although plaintiff did not object to the jury interrogatory in the trial court, or assign it as error in the court of appeal, a majority of the court of appeal, over dissents from two judges, concluded the jury instruction contained a “plain and fundamental error,” necessitating de novo review of the record. Based on its de novo review, the court of appeal rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendants now seek relief in this court.

We see nothing in the jury interrogatory which is ambiguous, misleading, confusing, or legally incorrect. Cf. Wegener v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 10-0810, p. 14, n. 10 (La.3/15/11), 60 So.3d 1220, 1230 (finding jury interrogatories misstated the law, and thus constituted plain and fundamental error). Rather, the jury’s answer to the interrogatory clearly reveals the jury concluded plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of establishing that an injury-producing accident occurred. This conclusion is not manifestly erroneous.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the jury verdict is' reinstated.

JOHNSON, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

|!After a trial by jury, the jury responded in the negative to the following interrogatory: “[d]o you find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an accident occurred on or about August 19, 2002, injuring the plaintiff, Patricia Bo-urque?” Plaintiff appealed. Although plaintiff did not object to the jury interrogatory in the trial court, or assign it as error in the court of appeal, a majority of the court of appeal, over dissents from two judges, concluded the jury instruction contained a “plain and fundamental error,” necessitating de novo review of the record. Based on its de novo review, the court of appeal rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendants now seek relief in this court.

We see nothing in the jury interrogatory which is ambiguous, misleading, confusing, or legally incorrect. Cf. Wegener v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 10-0810, p. 14, n. 10 (La.3/15/11), 60 So.3d 1220, 1230 (finding jury interrogatories misstated the law, and thus constituted plain and fundamental error). Rather, the jury’s answer to the interrogatory clearly reveals the jury concluded plaintiff did not satisfy her burden of establishing that an injury-producing accident occurred. This conclusion is not manifestly erroneous.

Accordingly, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the jury verdict is' reinstated.

JOHNSON, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 3d 1031, 2012 WL 2161165, 2012 La. LEXIS 1726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bourque-v-essex-insurance-co-la-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack