From our private database of 36,900+ case briefs...
Alexander v. Tate
Louisiana Court of Appeal
30 So. 3d 1122 (2010)
Facts
In August of 2005, Donald Alexander (plaintiff) allegedly suffered injuries when his vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by Ira Tate (defendant). Alexander sued Tate, Tate’s employer, the employer’s insurer, and the owner of the car Tate was driving (defendants), seeking damages. Alexander alleged that his injuries included neck and back pain. In March of 2008, Alexander was injured in another car accident. Alexander brought an action seeking recovery for damages sustained in the 2008 accident, and he settled that action for $8,000. In the action against Tate and the other defendants, issues arose regarding whether Alexander’s 2008 injuries had impacted the injuries Alexander allegedly suffered in 2005. At trial, Alexander sought permission to tell the jury about the $8,000 settlement for the 2008 accident to show the jury that he did not suffer serious injuries in that accident. Tate and the other defendants objected, but the trial court allowed Alexander to tell the jury about the $8,000 settlement payment. The jury ultimately concluded that Alexander was 10 percent at fault in the collision with Tate and awarded Alexander damages. Tate and the other defendants appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chatelain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 629,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 36,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.