Wiltz, Jr. v. Welch et al

Filing 70

RULING denying 66 MOTION for New Trial or in the Alternative, MOTION to Amend Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 02/03/2015. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH J. WILTZ, JR.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-420-SCR
MAYA WELCH, ET AL
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial or in
the Alternative, Motion to Amend Judgment.
66.

Record document number

The motion is opposed.1
This diversity case was tried before a jury on October 6 and

7, 2014.

Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants to recover

under Louisiana law for personal injuries and damages sustained as
a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 8,
2013. Plaintiff presented evidence and argued to the jury that he
should be awarded damages for past and future medical expenses,
loss of income, and past and future pain and suffering and loss of
enjoyment of life. Defendants admitted that Maya Welch, the driver
of the vehicle that struck the truck the plaintiff was driving, was
at fault.

Defendants presented evidence at trial and argued that

the injuries for which the plaintiff was seeking damages either
existed prior to the accident or were not caused by or related to
the accident.

1

Therefore, the defendants maintained that the jury

Record document number 69.

should not award the plaintiff any of the damages he was seeking.
After

deliberating

for

approximately

one

hour

and

forty

minutes, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff,
answering in the affirmative that Welch’s negligence was a legal
cause of injury to the plaintiff.

However, the jury awarded the

plaintiff only the total amount of his past medical expenses,
$21,607.80.

The jury did not award the plaintiff any amount for

future medical expenses, loss of income, or pain and suffering/loss
of enjoyment of life.2
After judgment was entered on October 9, 2014 in accordance
with the jury’s verdict, the plaintiff timely filed the present
motion under Rule 59, Fed.R.Civ.P., asking the court to grant an
additur, or in the alternative to grant a new trial on the issue of
damages.3

Defendants urged the court to uphold the jury’s verdict

and deny the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial or additur.
Based on the applicable law and the analysis that follows, the
plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Applicable Law
A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment is silent as

2

Record document number 64, Special Verdict Form.

3

Plaintiff stated in his motion that he was moving for a new
trial under Rule 59, or alternatively for relief under Rule 60,
Fed.R.Civ.P. Record document number 66, p. 1. However, in his
memorandum the plaintiff cited only Rule 59. The substance and
timing of the plaintiff’s motion shows that the plaintiff seeks
relief under Rule 59(a) and 59(e).
2

to the grounds that justify altering or amending a judgment, but
Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment.

The

question of whether Rule 59 or Rule 60 applies to a motion turns on
the time when the motion is served.

If the motion is filed no

later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, it is correctly
considered under Rule 59(e).

Nevertheless, Rules 59(e) and 60(b)

permit the same relief — a change in the judgment.

A Rule 59(e)

motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment.

The

usual grounds for relief under Rule 59(e) are correction of
manifest errors of law or fact on which the judgment is based,
consideration of newly discovered evidence, prevention of manifest
injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The motion
must request a substantive alteration of the judgment, not merely
the correction of a clerical error.

Rule 59(e) is not the proper

vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that
could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.
Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary
remedy which should be used sparingly. See, In re Transtexas Gas
Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002); Sentry Select Ins. Co. v.
Home State County Mut.Ins.Co., 582 Fed. Appx. 282 (5th Cir. 2014);
Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 303-304 (5th Cir. 2010); 11
Wright, Miller & Kane, § 2810.1 (3d ed.).
Under Rule 59(a)(1)(A) the court may, on motion, grant a new
trial on all or some of the issues after a jury trial, for any

3

reason for which a new trial has been granted in an action at law
in federal court.

In a diversity action in which Louisiana law

applies, a motion for new trial under Rule 59(a) based on an
excessive or inadequate jury award is governed by Louisiana state
law.

Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, 518 U.S. 415, 419, 116

S.Ct. 2211 (1996); Fair v. Allen, 669 F.3d 601, 604 (Cir. 2012);
Matheny v. Chavez, 2014 WL 6601029 (5th Cir., Nov. 21, 2014).
Under the Louisiana Civil Code, a party is entitled to a
new trial when the verdict or judgment appears clearly
contrary to the law and the evidence. In construing such
a motion Louisiana gives the jury high deference. This is
because a motion for new trial solely on the basis of
being contrary to the evidence is directed squarely at
the accuracy of the jury’s factual determinations and
must be viewed in that light. The jury’s verdict should
not be set aside if it is supportable by any fair
interpretation of the evidence.
Matheny, supra. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Under Louisiana law there is no rule that it is legal error to
award special damages without general damages.
verdict

awarding

medical

expenses

but

While a jury

simultaneously

denying

damages for pain and suffering will often be inconsistent when the
record is examined, under certain circumstances the evidence may
support both an award of medical expenses and a concurrent denial
of general damages.

After consideration of all the evidence, a

jury can reasonably reach the conclusion that a plaintiff has
proven he is entitled to recover certain medical costs, yet failed
to prove that he endured compensable pain and suffering as a result
of the defendant’s fault.

Id.; Wainwright v. Fontenot, 774 So.2d
4

70, 75 (La. 2000); Green v. K-Mart Corp., 874 So.2d 838, 843 (La.
2004).

The ultimate question is whether the factfinder made

inconsistent awards and thus abused its discretion.

Id.

Analysis
Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment
Citing proposed jury instruction P-13, the plaintiff asserted
that the jury was instructed it could not award special damages for
personal injuries and refuse to award any amount in general
damages, which includes pain and suffering, when the injuries
present objective symptoms.

Therefore, plaintiff argued, it was

legal error for the jury not to award general damages, and the
court should grant an additur for the elements of damage the jury
failed to award.
Well-established Louisiana and federal law prevent the court
from granting any relief to the plaintiff under Rule 59(e).
Plaintiff’s jury instruction P-13 was submitted by the plaintiff
but was not included in the instructions given to the jury.

When

given the opportunity, the plaintiff did not object to the absence
of this instruction from the charges given to the jury at the close
of the case.

Moreover, it was not legal error to omit this

instruction from the jury charge.

As established in the Louisiana

Supreme Court case cited by the plaintiff, Wainwright v. Fontenot,
there is no rule in Louisiana that it is legal error for the jury
to award special damages without also awarding general damages.
5

Thus, to the extent the plaintiff argued he is entitled to relief
under Rule 59(e) because the judgment is based on a manifest error
of law, that argument must be rejected in light of Wainwright and
the instructions given to the jury.
Second, in a case tried before a jury in federal court where
the amount of damages are disputed, the Seventh Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution prohibits an additur to increase the amount of
damages awarded by a jury.

Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 55

S.Ct. 296 (1935); Taylor v. Green, 868 F.2d 162, 163-64 (5th Cir.
1989); Matheny, supra.4

Thus, based on the Seventh Amendment and

these precedents, the court cannot grant the plaintiff relief under
Rule 59(e) by making an award for the categories of damages the
jury declined to award.
Rule 59(a) Motion for New Trial on Damages
Giving the required deference to the jury’s factual findings
and credibility determinations, the court cannot conclude that the
jury’s decision not to award the plaintiff damages for pain and
suffering, future medical expenses and lost wages was inherently
inconsistent and not supported by a fair interpretation of the
evidence.

As

explained

by

the

defendants,

considering

the

testimony and exhibits introduced at trial, in particular the
testimony

of

the

plaintiff

and

4

the

doctors

regarding

the

The only exception is where the jury has properly determined
liability and there is no genuine factual dispute as to the amount
of damages. Roman v. Western Mfg., Inc., 691 F.3d 686, 701-02 (5th
Cir. 2012).
6

plaintiff’s prior injuries, complaints and lawsuits, it is apparent
from the jury’s refusal to award an amount for these categories of
damages, that the jury found the plaintiff was not credible with
regard to the injuries/pain and suffering he claimed were caused by
the accident.
The jury’s credibility and factual findings are not illogical
or inconsistent with their initial finding of legal cause for the
plaintiff’s past medical expenses. On the contrary, given the fact
that the defendants stipulated that Welch’s fault caused the
accident,

the

jury’s

findings

were

a

fair

and

reasonable

interpretation of the evidence. The jury could reasonably conclude
that the plaintiff proved he should recover certain medical costs
because, but for the accident he would not have had a reason to
seek medical treatment from the doctors.

And at the same time,

because the plaintiff was not credible he failed to prove he
endured any compensable pain and suffering or lost wages, or would
incur any future medical costs as a result of the accident.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial or in the
Alternative, Motion to Amend Judgment is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 3, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7