# Ballard v. National Indemnity Company of Omaha, Neb.

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · November 13, 1964 · 246 La. 963

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671005

## Case

- **Full name:** Raiford BALLARD Et Ux. v. NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY OF OMAHA, NEBRASKA; Mrs. Florence K. CRAFT v. NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY OF OMAHA, NEBRASKA
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** November 13, 1964
- **Citations:** 246 La. 963; 169 So. 2d 64; 1964 La. LEXIS 2826
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McCALEB
- **Judges:** Fournet, McCaleb
- **Cited by:** 374 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/9671005

## Opinion text

McCALEB, Justice
(concurring).
I am in accord with those views expressed in the majority opinion which enunciate the proper approach to be taken by the appellate courts of this State, within the scope of their constitutional jurisdiction, in determining in tort cases whether the damages awarded are insufficient or excessive. As I interpret it, the decision herein rejects, sub silentio, the common law concept of acquiescence in trial court and jury awards as a matter of course which, together with the criticism contained in the majority opinion on rehearing in Gaspard v. LeMaire, 245 La. 239 , 158 So.2d 149 of “ * * * overemphasis of uniformity of awards * * * ”, caused vast diversions *975 of opinion among the members of the bench and bar as to the tenor and extent of the admonitions and context of the Gaspard decision. As the lone dissenter in the Gaspard case on rehearing I, too, was confused and concerned as to the breadth of that holding.
However, the decision in this case clarifies the legal position of the majority in the Gaspard matter which position, as presently explained, is strikingly similar, I submit, to the principles expressed in the original opinion there, as well as those stated in roy dissenting opinion on rehearing.
Nonetheless, I am impelled to reiterate my disagreement with the conclusion in Gaspard v. LeMaire, on rehearing, that the verdict of $19,500 in favor of plaintiff for her injuries and pain and suffering was not excessive. That award, being more than double the amounts theretofore given to plaintiffs in other cases involving similar injuries, was highly excessive since that plaintiff’s pain and suffering and subsequent disability was neither greater nor more intense than that sustained by other plaintiffs receiving comparable injuries. Hence the verdict was out of all reasonable proportion to other awards and, thus, oppressive to defendants. See Dobyns v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 119 La. 72 , 43 So. 934 .
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9671005. Public record. Not legal advice.