Gunn v. Robertson
Louisiana Court of Appeals
801 So. 2d 555 (2001)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Randall Gunn (plaintiff) was involved in a minor traffic accident when his car lightly hit a vehicle driven by James Robertson (defendant). Both cars were travelling approximately 10 miles per hour at the time of the accident. After being examined by a physician approximately one week later Gunn was diagnosed with having a chronic spinal defect that may have been triggered by the accident and required surgery to correct. Gunn and his wife, Tammy, filed suit for damages against Gunn and his insurance carrier, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) (defendant). The Gunns sought general damages plus past and future medicals, wages, and Randall’s loss of earning capacity as a self-employed welder. Additionally, Tammy and the Gunns’ children filed a claim for loss of consortium. At trial, the Gunns submitted evidence of past medical expenses in the amount of $13,942.19 and future medical costs related to the surgery in the amount of $59,915. After a trial, the jury held for the Gunns, concluding that Robertson was 70 percent negligent and that Randall was 30 percent negligent. The jury awarded damages in the amounts of $1,000 for Randall’s physical pain and suffering, $1,700 for Randall’s past medical expenses, and $5,400 in lost wages but did not award any monies on the loss of consortium claim. The Gunns appealed the trial court’s finding of comparative fault and the amount of the general and special damages awarded.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gothard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 778,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.