CLEMENTINE MURRAY AND CARMEN R. WRIGHT, GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR ADRIAN LAVONNE WRIGHT, MINOR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
RAMADA INNS, INC., INTERSTATE MOTOR LODGES OF SHREVEPORT, INC., BARKER DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, INC., AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

5th Cir. | 1988-04-18
No. 86-4648
Before GOLDBERG and JONES, Circuit Judges.
843 F.2d 831 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1988)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that assumption of the risk does not bar recovery under Louisiana's comparative negligence statute and that the jury's damage award was excessive.


Facts & Procedural History

The court considered a certified question regarding assumption of the risk and an appeal concerning a jury's damage award.…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

We certified a question to the Louisiana Supreme Court as to the applicability of the assumption of the risk defense under the Louisiana comparative negligence statute, 821 F. 2d 272. La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 2323. The Louisiana Supreme Court has answered that assumption of the risk does not serve as a total bar to a plaintiff’s recovery in a negligence case, 521 So. 2d 1123. Therefore, we affirm the district court s decision not to instruct the jury on the assumption of the risk defense.

Appellants have also appealed the size of the damage award to Adrian Wright as being unsupported by the evidence. We review the district court’s decision not to grant a new trial on damages or order a remittitur under the abuse of discretion standard. Westbrook v. General Tire and Rubber Co., 754 F. 2d 1233, 1241 (5th Cir.1985). We are convinced that appellants have satisfied that heavy burden. Adrian Wright was receiving little if any financial support from the decedent at the time of the decedent’s death. In addition, the decedent rarely visited his son. The jury’s award was far out of line compared with awards by Louisiana juries in similar cases. Therefore, we find the jury’s award of $250,000 to Adrian Wright to be excessive and order a remittitur of the award to $25,000.

The remaining errors urged by Appellants are without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED as modified.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw