See v. Entergy Corp.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

See v. Entergy Corp.

35 So. 3d 1081, 2010 La. LEXIS 1376, 2010 WL 2220636

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 4, 2010

Docket2010-C-0065

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 35 So. 3d 1081 (See v. Entergy Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

See v. Entergy Corp., 35 So. 3d 1081, 2010 La. LEXIS 1376, 2010 WL 2220636 (La. 2010).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.¹

The assessment of damages by a jury is a determination of fact, one entitled to great deference on review. Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00), 774 So.2d 70, 74. Accordingly, a reviewing court’s role in examining general damages is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact. Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260 (La.1993). If an appellate court finds that the trier of fact clearly abused its discretion, it can only disturb the award to the extent of lowering it (or raising it) to the highest (or lowest) point which is reasonably within the discretion given to that court. Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., 341 So.2d 332, 334 (La.1977).

Based on the record, we find the trial court and the court of appeal abused their discretion in overturning the jury verdict. Accordingly, we reinstate the jury’s verdict in all respects and affirm the trial court’s award of the imposition of attorney fees and costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND RENDERED.

KNOLL, J., dissents with reasons. WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.

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

PER CURIAM.¹

The assessment of damages by a jury is a determination of fact, one entitled to great deference on review. Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 6 (La.10/17/00), 774 So.2d 70, 74. Accordingly, a reviewing court’s role in examining general damages is not to decide what it considers to be an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact. Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1260 (La.1993). If an appellate court finds that the trier of fact clearly abused its discretion, it can only disturb the award to the extent of lowering it (or raising it) to the highest (or lowest) point which is reasonably within the discretion given to that court. Coco v. Winston Indus., Inc., 341 So.2d 332, 334 (La.1977).

Based on the record, we find the trial court and the court of appeal abused their discretion in overturning the jury verdict. Accordingly, we reinstate the jury’s verdict in all respects and affirm the trial court’s award of the imposition of attorney fees and costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND RENDERED.

KNOLL, J., dissents with reasons. WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 So. 3d 1081, 2010 La. LEXIS 1376, 2010 WL 2220636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/see-v-entergy-corp-la-2010.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack