Moffett v. Lumpkin

382 So. 2d 278
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 11, 1980
Docket10873
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 382 So. 2d 278 (Moffett v. Lumpkin) 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
Moffett v. Lumpkin, 382 So. 2d 278 (La. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

382 So.2d 278 (1980)

Lloyd Robert MOFFETT, Jr.
v.
Mary LUMPKIN et al.

No. 10873.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

March 11, 1980.

*279 Monte J. Ducote, New Orleans, for plaintiff.

Alexander C. Cocke, Jr., New Orleans, for defendants.

Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and HOOD, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Awarded by the jury a total of only $15,000 for facial scarring (from breaking an automobile windshield with his head), a deep laceration of the knee, $2,763 medical expenses (including emergency room suturing by a plastic surgeon, later surgical revision and finally dermabrasion) and $2,442 claimed as lost wages, plaintiff appeals.

We sympathize with plaintiff; general damages of about $10,000 is towards the low end of the range for his many small facial scars shown by the photographs in evidence, for a scar on his leg, and for his pain and suffering. But we cannot articulate any abuse of the jury's "much discretion" under C.C. 1934(3); Reck v. Stevens, La.1979, 373 So.2d 498.

Plaintiff's complaint that the judge should have let the jury know defendants' insurance policy limits is impliedly answered by Guy v. Tonglet, La.1980, 379 So.2d 744, 747:

Should a defendant raise the issue of his inability to pay a judgment, in defense or in mitigation, he has put his financial status at issue and the plaintiff is entitled to be prepared to present evidence in opposition. His financial status is otherwise irrelevant.

Affirmed.

SAMUEL, J., concurs.

SAMUEL, Judge, concurring.

In my view the general award for pain and suffering is so inadequate as to require an increase. However, I agree that we cannot increase under the guidelines set out in Reck v. Stevens.

Accordingly, I respectfully concur.

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

Related

Jones v. Lingenfelder
537 So. 2d 1275 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
Ponder v. Groendyke Transport, Inc.
454 So. 2d 823 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1984)
Mullin v. Vessier
400 So. 2d 1192 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1981)
Cobb v. Insured Lloyds
387 So. 2d 13 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
382 So. 2d 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moffett-v-lumpkin-lactapp-1980.