Demetris Lawson v. Randen Gauteau, Johnson Controls Fire Protection, LP, and Old Republic Insurance Company

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedNovember 7, 2025
Docket2025 CA 0059
StatusUnknown

This text of Demetris Lawson v. Randen Gauteau, Johnson Controls Fire Protection, LP, and Old Republic Insurance Company (Demetris Lawson v. Randen Gauteau, Johnson Controls Fire Protection, LP, and Old Republic Insurance Company) 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
Demetris Lawson v. Randen Gauteau, Johnson Controls Fire Protection, LP, and Old Republic Insurance Company, (La. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

FIRST CIRCUIT

2025 CA 0059

DEMETRIS LAWSON

VERSUS

RANDEN GAUTREAU, JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROTECTION, LP, AND OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

NOV0 7 2025 Judgment Rendered:

Appealed from the Twenty -First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St. Helena State of Louisiana Case No. 24075

Honorable Charlotte H. Foster, Judge Presiding

Don R. Williams Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Baton Rouge, Louisiana Demetris Lawson

Arthur Landry New Orleans, Louisiana and-

David Forkner, pro hac vice Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees Bradley Deutchman, pro hac vice Randen Gautreaux and Johnson Washington, DC Controls Fire Protection, LP

BEFORE: LANIER, WOLFE AND HESTER, JJ. LANIER, J.

In this suit by the plaintiff/appellant, Demetris Lawson, against the

defendants/ appellees, Randen Gautreau and Johnson Controls Fire Protection, LP

Johnson Controls), the Twenty -First Judicial District Court rendered judgment in

favor of Ms. Lawson pursuant to a jury verdict, awarding Ms. Lawson $ 1, 150. 00

against the defendants/ appellees. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 20, 2018, Ms. Lawson was involved in an automobile accident,

with the other vehicle being driven by Mr. Gautreau, in St. Helena Parish. Mr.

Gautreau, traveling in a van westbound on La. 16, drifted across the center line and

into the eastbound lane, and then collided with an 18 -wheeler, in which Ms.

Lawson was a passenger. Ms. Lawson allegedly sustained both property damage

and personal injury. At the time of the accident, Mr. Gautreau was acting within

the course and scope of his employment with Johnson Controls. Mr. Gautreau and

Johnson Controls were insured by Old Republic Insurance Company ( Old

Republic).

In her petition for damages, Ms. Lawson claimed she suffered the following:

past, present, and future medical expenses; past, present, and future physical pain

and suffering; past, present, and future mental anguish; past, present, and future

emotional distress; past, present, and future loss of enjoyment of life; past, present,

and future lost wages; loss of future earning capacity; and any and all other

damages that could be proven at trial. Ms. Lawson estimated that her damages

exceeded $ 50, 000. 00.

On April 5, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation, in which the defendants

admitted liability for the accident, that Mr. Gautreau was acting in the course and

scope of his employment with Johnson Controls at the time of the accident, and

that Mr. Gautreau and Johnson Controls were insured by Old Republic at the time

2 of the accident. The parties proceeded to trial on the issue of quantum for Ms.

Lawson' s injuries.

A trial by jury in the matter commenced on March 6, 2023, and concluded

on March 10, 2023. The jury verdict form read as follows:

1. Do you find by a preponderance of evidence that Demetris Lawson suffered any injuries or aggravation of any pre-existing injuries as result of the accident that occurred on August 20, 2018? [ Answer is " Yes"]

2. What amount of damages, expressed in dollars, will reasonably and adequately compensate Demetris Lawson for the injuries suffered as a result of the accident that occurred on August 20, 2018?

Physical Pain and Suffering, Past & Future .............. $ 1, 150. 00 Mental Anguish and Emotional Distress, Past & Future ................................................. $ 0. 00 Loss of enjoyment of Life, Past & Future ................ $ 0. 00 TOTAL: $ 19150, 00

The trial court polled the jury, and the polling revealed that ten of the twelve jurors

agreed with the verdict. The trial court found the verdict to be correct and in

appropriate form, and adopted the verdict as its judgment. The trial court signed

the judgment on April 4, 2023.

Ms. Lawson filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in

the alternative, motion for new trial, on April 13, 2023. Ms. Lawson argued that

no reasonable jury could have reached the jury' s verdict based on the evidence

presented at trial, that her award was abusively low, that the facts pointed so

strongly and overwhelmingly in her favor for a higher award, and that the jury' s

verdict was unreasonable. The trial court denied the motion. Ms. Lawson has

appealed the April 4, 2023 judgment.'

t The motion for devolutive appeal names Demetris Lawson and her husband Trevor Lawson as plaintiffs; however, Mr. Lawson' s claims were apparently dismissed in a separate matter prior to the filing of the instant appeal. Mr. Lawson is not a party to this appeal.

3 Ms. Lawson argues that the jury abused its discretion and/or committed

manifest error in awarding only $ 1, 150. 00 in general damages for past and future

physical pain and suffering, nothing for past and future mental anguish and

emotional distress, and nothing for past and future loss of enjoyment of life. She

further argues that the jury' s general damages awards should be increased to a

reasonable amount.

S'T'ANDARD OF REVIEW

A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court' s or a jury' s finding of fact

in the absence of "manifest error" or unless it is " clearly wrong." Stobart v. State

through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993). This

court has announced a two-part test for the reversal of a factfinder' s

determinations: 1) the appellate court must find from the record that. a reasonable

factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court, and 2) the appellate

court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly

wrong ( manifestly erroneous). This test dictates that a reviewing court must do

more than simply review the record for some evidence which supports or

controverts the trial court' s finding. The reviewing court must review the record in

its entirety to determine whether the trial court' s finding was clearly wrong or

manifestly erroneous. Id.

DISCUSSION

At trial, testimony of various witnesses was introduced into evidence, some

live and some by video deposition. The following are summations of those

testimonies as they pertain to Ms. Lawson' s injuries.2

A number of video depositions and documents, all admitted as evidence at trial, were not included with the appellate record that is before us. After the instant appeal was lodged with this court, Ms. Lawson filed a number of motions for extensions of time to file her brief and to supplement the appellate record from February to May of 2025, due to these evidentiary items not being included in the record. On March 21, 2025, this court denied Ms. Lawson' s second

S Amanda Easley, APRN

Amanda Easley, a nurse practitioner for an occupational clinic, is qualified to conduct physical examinations on behalf of the United States Department of

Transportation ( DOT). Nurse Easley performed such an examination on Ms.

Lawson on June 13, 2018, approximately two months prior to the accident. Nurse

Easley noted that at the time of the examination, Ms. Lawson reported having

hypertension, high cholesterol, and history of a broken leg in 2007.

Nurse Easley testified that in order to have a commercial driver' s license, the

DOT allows a driver to have high blood pressure and high cholesterol, so long as

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

Related

Stobart v. State Through DOTD
617 So. 2d 880 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1993)
Harris v. Delta Development Partnership
994 So. 2d 69 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Demetris Lawson v. Randen Gauteau, Johnson Controls Fire Protection, LP, and Old Republic Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demetris-lawson-v-randen-gauteau-johnson-controls-fire-protection-lp-lactapp-2025.