Gordon v. General Motors Corp.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Gordon v. General Motors Corp.

323 So. 2d 495, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 4368

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 5, 1975

DocketNo. 5241

StatusPublished

This text of 323 So. 2d 495 (Gordon v. General Motors Corp.) 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

Gordon v. General Motors Corp., 323 So. 2d 495, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 4368 (La. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

CUTRER, Judge.

Plaintiff, Wilson L. Gordon, brought suit against defendants, General Motors Corporation and its insurer, Royal Indemnity Company, for damages allegedly sustained by him in a vehicular collision, the cause of which was alleged to have been defective ball joints on plaintiff’s GMC truck, which was manufactured by General Motors. A jury trial was held and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff. Judgment was signed accordingly. A motion for new trial, or alternatively for a remit-titur, was filed by defendants and the trial judge ordered a new trial unless plaintiff agreed to a remittitur within thirty days. The remittitur was timely agreed to by plaintiff and an order was signed by the trial judge denying defendants’ motion for new trial.

LSA-C.C.P. article 1813 provides as follows :

“If the trial court is of the opinion that the verdict is so excessive or inadequate that a new trial should be granted for that reason only, it may indicate to [496]*496the party or his attorney within what time he may enter a remittitur or addi-tur. This remittitur or additur is to be entered only with the consent of the plaintiff or the defendant as the case may be, as an alternative to a new trial, and is to be entered only if the amount of the excess or inadequacy of the verdict or judgment can be separately and fairly ascertained. If a remittitur or ad-ditur is entered, then the court shall reform the jury verdict or judgment in accordance therewith.” (Emphasis ours)

We note in reviewing this record that it does not contain a judgment reforming the prior judgment. Therefore, we remand the case to the district court for the sole purpose of entering a judgment reforming the original judgment to reflect the entering of the remittitur.

Remanded.

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

CUTRER, Judge.

Plaintiff, Wilson L. Gordon, brought suit against defendants, General Motors Corporation and its insurer, Royal Indemnity Company, for damages allegedly sustained by him in a vehicular collision, the cause of which was alleged to have been defective ball joints on plaintiff’s GMC truck, which was manufactured by General Motors. A jury trial was held and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff. Judgment was signed accordingly. A motion for new trial, or alternatively for a remit-titur, was filed by defendants and the trial judge ordered a new trial unless plaintiff agreed to a remittitur within thirty days. The remittitur was timely agreed to by plaintiff and an order was signed by the trial judge denying defendants’ motion for new trial.

LSA-C.C.P. article 1813 provides as follows :

“If the trial court is of the opinion that the verdict is so excessive or inadequate that a new trial should be granted for that reason only, it may indicate to [496]*496the party or his attorney within what time he may enter a remittitur or addi-tur. This remittitur or additur is to be entered only with the consent of the plaintiff or the defendant as the case may be, as an alternative to a new trial, and is to be entered only if the amount of the excess or inadequacy of the verdict or judgment can be separately and fairly ascertained. If a remittitur or ad-ditur is entered, then the court shall reform the jury verdict or judgment in accordance therewith.” (Emphasis ours)

We note in reviewing this record that it does not contain a judgment reforming the prior judgment. Therefore, we remand the case to the district court for the sole purpose of entering a judgment reforming the original judgment to reflect the entering of the remittitur.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 So. 2d 495, 1975 La. App. LEXIS 4368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-general-motors-corp-lactapp-1975.