# Donaldson v. Hudson Insurance Co.

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · April 10, 2013 · 2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 1013

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4802268

## Case

- **Full name:** Alfred DONALDSON, Sr., Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Child, Alfred Donaldson, Jr. v. HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY Tango Motor Transit, LLC Tango Transport, Inc. and Loyd Dollins
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** April 10, 2013
- **Citations:** 2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 1013; 116 So. 3d 46; 2013 La. App. LEXIS 737; 2013 WL 1460165
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Tobias
- **Judges:** Bagneris, Belsome, Dysart, Lombard, Tobias
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4802268

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming judgment of general damages of $125,000 where the plaintiff suffered from cervical and lumbar disc herniation and was recommended for rhizotomy to avoid constant chiropractic treatment

## Opinion text

TOBIAS, J.,
concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
Li respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority that affirms the trial court’s judgment in its entirety, save reducing the award for past medical expenses to $19,041.00. I write separately because I agree in part with certain points contained in the dissent of Judge Lombard.
A Daubert hearing does not require live testimony. Testimony in a deposition may suffice if the expert was adequately cross examined thereat by all parties. In a discovery deposition, the party who intends to rely upon the deposed witness at trial does not necessarily ask many questions, if any at all, intending to ask his/her useful questions at only trial.
In the case a bar, defendant’s counsel did not ask the deposed expert witnesses during the discovery deposition the questions that would ordinarily be necessary to *53 establish the experts’ qualifications and the appropriateness of the experts’ opinions. When these experts were not present at the Daubert hearing and defense counsel sought to rely solely upon their discovery deposition, the court had no way to properly rule upon the motion pending before the court. The court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in determining the experts unqualified and did not abuse its discretion in excluding the experts at trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4802268. Public record. Not legal advice.