Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City, — So.3d —, 2024 WL 5162733, 2023-00788 (La. 12/19/24)
Louisiana Supreme Court Revisits Damage Awards in Barber Brothers Case: A Closer Look into the Application of Pete v. Boland Marine.
Authors: Christopher K. LeMieux and Emilia Duncan
In a recent decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Barber Brothers Contracting Co., LLC v. Capitol City Produce Co., LLC reaffirmed the principles of appellate review established in Pete v. Boland Marine & Manufacturing Co., LLC while revisiting a jury’s damage awards in a personal injury case. Specifically, the Louisiana Supreme Court’s opinion and decision in Barber Brothers Contracting Co., LLC, clarified the principles from Pete v. Boland Marine & Manufacturing Co., LLC, and emphasized the structured two-step analysis for ensuring fairness in appellate review of general damages awards.
Brief Background
This case arose following a vehicle collision involving an F250 truck operated by Barber Brothers and a Capital City Produce Co. freightliner box truck operated by plaintiff, Frank Cushenberry (“Plaintiff”) an employee of Capital City Produce Co. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff suffered life-altering injuries including, craniofacial fractures, a traumatic brain injury, and permanent physical and psychological impairments. Plaintiff and his wife, individually and on behalf of their minor children, then filed a personal injury lawsuit against Barber Brothers and its truck driver for damages arising from the accident.
At trial, a jury awarded $10.75 million in general damages to Plaintiff, $2.5 million in loss of consortium damages to Plaintiff’s wife, and $1.5 million in loss of consortium damages to each minor child. In response to the jury’s award of damages, Barber Brothers appealed. Ultimately, the First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the amount of the jury’s award of damages, and Barber Brothers sought writ of certiorari, which was granted. After further review, the Louisiana Supreme Court reduced the jury’s award of damages to $5 million in general damages, $400,000.00 in loss of consortium damages to Plaintiff’s wife and $100,000.00 in loss of consortium damages to each of Plaintiff’s children. In response to the Supreme Court’s reduction in damages, Plaintiff then filed an application for rehearing.
Pete Analysis
At rehearing, the Louisiana Supreme Court applied the Pete framework, which mandates a two-step process for reviewing general damage awards. Under the Pete framework, the reviewing court must first determine if the factfinder abused its discretion by assessing the particular facts of the case in conjunction with assessing prior awards for similar injuries. Then, if abuse is found, the reviewing court identifies the highest or lowest amount reasonably within discretion based on the facts and prior awards.
Here, the Louisiana Supreme Court primarily focused on the first step of the Pete analysis. In doing so, the Court noted that while prior awards in cases with similar injuries are considered when evaluating whether a general damages award is an abuse of discretion, it is not the only factor to be considered. Specifically, the Court emphasized that prior awards are simply just a ‘starting point,” as no two cases are identical and a court must not overlook the “the facts or circumstances particular to the case under consideration.”
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the jury’s $10.75 million general damages award, though high, was justified by the severe and far-reaching impact of Mr. Cushenberry’s injuries, as documented in extensive and largely uncontested trial evidence.
The court also revised the loss of consortium awards, increasing them to $1 million for Plaintiff’s wife and $500,000 for each of his two children. These adjustments underscore the Court’s recognition of the profound toll on family relationships caused by Plaintiff’s injuries. While the court’s prior ruling reduced the jury’s awards from $2.5 million in loss of consortium damages to Plaintiff’s wife, and $1.5 million in loss of consortium damages to each minor child, to $400,000 and $100,000 respectively, the Court, on rehearing, emphasized the unique facts of the case and reinstated higher figures that the court believed better reflected the devastating personal and familial consequences.
This decision is notable for its nuanced interpretation of Pete. While prior awards in similar cases serve as a guiding benchmark, Pete clarifies that they do not impose strict limits on damages. The court also reaffirmed that a jury’s findings should only be overturned when the award “shocks the conscience.” By carefully weighing both precedent and the specific circumstances of the case, the Louisiana Supreme Court demonstrated a commitment to fairness while preserving the broad discretion traditionally afforded to juries.
The Barber Brothers ruling reinforces the importance of tailoring damage awards to the individual circumstances of each case while ensuring they remain grounded in legal precedent. For Plaintiffs, this decision is a reminder to meticulously document the full scope of a plaintiff’s injuries and their repercussions, as this evidence plays a pivotal role in both trial court and appellate considerations. For defendants, this is a lesson that failure to get evidence in at trial to support one’s defenses can have devastating impacts as the Pete case shows that a reviewing court is not necessarily going to cap damages based on awards in prior “similar” cases.
