Lee v. Great American Indemnity Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Lee v. Great American Indemnity Co.

92 So. 2d 747, 1957 La. App. LEXIS 645

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 5, 1957

DocketNo. 8608

StatusPublished

This text of 92 So. 2d 747 (Lee v. Great American Indemnity 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

Lee v. Great American Indemnity Co., 92 So. 2d 747, 1957 La. App. LEXIS 645 (La. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDY, Judge.

This suit for damages was consolidated for trial with the suit of McCrory v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., 92 So.2d 742, which involved the same facts and circumstances.

After trial there was judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $475.56, from which defendants have appealed.

Plaintiff’s claims consist of property damage, medical expenses, loss of wages and an item of $350 claimed for pain, suffering and inconvenience.

We find no necessity for entering into a detailed discussion of the issue presented on this appeal, which is restricted solely to the question of quantum of damages. Plaintiff suffered injuries in the nature of assorted cuts, bruises and abrasions; was confined to the hospital for only one day; lost two days from work, and unquestionably suffered pain, discomfort and inconvenience for a period of several weeks. Though not serious, plaintiff’s injuries were painful and annoying to' such degree that we feel the allowance could not reasonably be considered as either excessive or inadequate. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

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

HARDY, Judge.

This suit for damages was consolidated for trial with the suit of McCrory v. Great American Indemnity Company, La.App., 92 So.2d 742, which involved the same facts and circumstances.

After trial there was judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $475.56, from which defendants have appealed.

Plaintiff’s claims consist of property damage, medical expenses, loss of wages and an item of $350 claimed for pain, suffering and inconvenience.

We find no necessity for entering into a detailed discussion of the issue presented on this appeal, which is restricted solely to the question of quantum of damages. Plaintiff suffered injuries in the nature of assorted cuts, bruises and abrasions; was confined to the hospital for only one day; lost two days from work, and unquestionably suffered pain, discomfort and inconvenience for a period of several weeks. Though not serious, plaintiff’s injuries were painful and annoying to' such degree that we feel the allowance could not reasonably be considered as either excessive or inadequate. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 2d 747, 1957 La. App. LEXIS 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-great-american-indemnity-co-lactapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack