Dirksmeyer v. Hanlon

193 So. 2d 398, 1966 La. App. LEXIS 4510
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 28, 1966
DocketNo. 6838
StatusPublished

This text of 193 So. 2d 398 (Dirksmeyer v. Hanlon) 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
Dirksmeyer v. Hanlon, 193 So. 2d 398, 1966 La. App. LEXIS 4510 (La. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinion

BAILES, Judge.

This is an action in tort brought by plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly resulting from an accident between two vehicles. The defendants named in the petition are Mrs. Rose O. Hanlon, mother of the minor driver of the Miller vehicle which ran into the vehicle occupied by plaintiff, and Mrs. Hanlon’s liability insurer, Travelers Insurance Company; David Miller, the owner of the vehicle driven by young William M. Hanlon; and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the insurer of the Miller vehicle and also insurer of the Dirksmeyer family automobile in which plaintiff was riding.

On June 17, 1962, the plaintiff, Mrs. Margory Maroney Dirksmeyer, was involved in this accident while riding as a guest passenger, seated on the..right front, in the family car driven by her son, Michael Dirksmeyer. As he attempted a left turn into his driveway, the car he was driving was struck on its left side near the front door by the vehicle owned by David Miller and driven by William M. Hanlon. Both vehicles were traveling in the same direction. Further discussion of the details of the accident are not necessary since State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as the insurer of the Dirksmeyer automobile, has admitted liability.

It was stipulated between the parties that the suit would be dismissed as to the defendants, Rose O. Hanlon, David Miller, and The Travelers Insurance Company, and they are no longer parties hereto.

[400]*400The sole issue before the trial court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to any damages, and if so, the amount thereof.

After trial, the judge a quo, with written reasons, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $7,500.00, plus interest thereon from the date of judicial demand, and for all costs of the suit. From this judgment, defendant perfected a sus-pensive appeal. The plaintiff answered this appeal seeking an increase in the award from $7,500.00 to $20,000.00.

Appellant contends that the district judge abused his discretion in concluding that the plaintiff sustained any physical injury and an aggravation of a pre-existing anxiety psychoneurosis. Appellant urges that the medical testimony shows that the plaintiff’s nervous complaints are not solely attributable to the accident but to other causes which existed prior to the accident. Appellant further contends that the trial court erred in failing to find that the main cause of plaintiffs psychoneurotic problems is her refusal to have a hysterectomy operation. Finally, appellants urge that the award of $7,500.00 made by the trial court is excessive, being based on the assumption that the accident triggered plaintiff’s neurosis when in fact it was a minor factor.

The trial court found that Mrs. Dirks-meyer sustained the following physical injuries :

“1. A sprain of her cervical spine in the nature of a whiplash which necessitated her wearing a neck brace for approximately four months and the use of traction for about five minutes every day during that time.
2. A contusion of her right hip which is painful and requires periodic medication in the form of a shot to relieve the pain.
3. A rather serious injury to her teeth and mouth requiring extensive dental work.
4. A bruise to her right elbow.
5. A sprain of her lower back. However, Mrs. Dirksmeyer’s most serious problem is of an emotional nature which has been diagnosed to the satisfaction of the court as an aggravation of a preexisting anxiety psychoneurosis.”

Following the accident, the plaintiff first consulted Dr. Henry Harvey, Jr., a specialist in internal medicine. He testified that during the course of his examination of the plaintiff on June 25, 1962, he found no evidence of recent head or neck injury. He reported that Mrs. Dirksmeyer sustained multiple bruises as the result of the accident and that a pre-existing chronic anxiety was aggravated.

The plaintiff was treated by Dr. Howard Hansen from June 28, 1962 through June 4, 1963. He testified that Mrs. Dirksmeyer suffered from the traumatic aggravation of a pre-existing anxiety psychoneurosis. He further stated that she had sustained an acute sprain of the cervical spine and an acute sprain of the lumbosacral spine. It was his opinion that the plaintiff had recovered from the physical injuries incurred in the accident by October 18, 1962, but that she had had a severe neurotic reaction to her injuries. Dr. Hansen further testified that while Mrs. Dirksmeyer had not completely recovered from the emotional instability, her condition was not causing any significant degree of impairment.

Dr. Thomas Campanella, an orthopedist to whom Mrs. Dirksmeyer was referred by Dr. Hansen, testified that he examined the plaintiff on September 6, 1962. His examination revealed tenderness in the posterior triangle of the plaintiff’s neck with restriction of motion of the neck to a moderate degree. His impression was that the plaintiff had sustained a cervical sprain, a contusion of the right chest, a contusion of the lower back, and a contusion of the right elbow. He further stated that the clinical examination was negative for any positive objective findings to indicate any residual disability as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident of June 17, 1962, and it was his opinion that the plaintiff, by [401]*401September 6, 1962, had fully recovered from any injury which she may have suffered in the accident.

The plaintiff consulted Dr. Russell M. Coco on June 30, 1962. His examination revealed a spasm of the trapezius and para-vertebral muscles, tenderness to deep palpation over the right sacroiliac joint, multiple bruises and ecchymoses of the right elbow, right cheek bone and both thighs. It was his impression that the plaintiff had sustained a right sacroiliac sprain, lumbar strain, and multiple contusions of extremities, shoulder and face, but that she should have no permanent disability from her accident.

Dr. John Henry McMillian, Jr., a dentist, treated the plaintiff as a result of this accident. He stated that dental work, including a fixed bridge, performed on the plaintiff prior to this automobile accident had received extensive damage in the accident. He testified that an examination following the accident disclosed that the enamel had been fractured rendering the dental work useless and making it necessary to remake the entire bridge.

Mrs. Dirksmeyer has proved that she has sustained physical injuries resulting from the accident which include a sprain of her cervical spine, a sprain of her lumbo-sacral spine, a contusion of her right hip, a contusion of her right elbow, and an injury to l¡er teeth and mouth. However, the testimony of the medical doctors show that she had fully recovered from these injuries by October, 1962.

In addition to the physical injuries which the plaintiff suffered, it is the opinion of this court that she also suffered an aggravation of an anxiety psychoneurosis which existed prior to the accident.

Dr. Hansen and Dr. Harvey both found that Mrs. Dirksmeyer suffered, as a result of the accident, an aggravation of a preexisting chronic anxiety.

The plaintiff consulted Dr. L. F. Mag-ruder, a psychiatrist, who testified that Mrs. Dirksmeyer suffered from an emotional disorder prior to the accident of June 17, 1962, but that this emotional condition was aggravated by the accident.

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

Related

McCorquodale v. Watson
170 So. 2d 545 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1965)
Gaspard v. LeMaire
158 So. 2d 149 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1963)
Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb.
169 So. 2d 64 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1964)
Wright v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
169 So. 2d 623 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 So. 2d 398, 1966 La. App. LEXIS 4510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dirksmeyer-v-hanlon-lactapp-1966.