# Jordan v. Travelers Insurance Company

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · February 24, 1971 · 257 La. 995

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679279

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph H. JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant-Relator, v. the TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees-Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** February 24, 1971
- **Citations:** 257 La. 995; 245 So. 2d 151; 1971 La. LEXIS 4447
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hamlin
- **Judges:** Tate, Hamlin, Dixon, McCaleb, Appeal
- **Cited by:** 489 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/9679279

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that "proof by direct or circumstantial evidence is sufficient to constitute a preponderance, when, taking the evidence as a whole, such proof shows that the fact or causation sought to be proved is more probable than not"
- observing that a tort victim has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the damages caused by the defendant's fault

## Opinion text

HAMLIN, Justice
(dissenting).
*1015 In this tort suit, the trial judge awarded plaintiff:
Personal injuries ......... $ 6,500.00
Special damages .......... 2,236.16
Total .................... $ 8,736.16
The Court of Appeal increased the award:
Personal injuries ......... $31,500.00
Special damages.......... 3,186.26
Total .................... $34,686.26
Deducting from this amount $ 8,736.16
I find an increase of...... $25,950.10
in the award of the Court of Appeal.
In justifying the above increase, the Court of Appeal stated:
"With respect to plaintiff’s claim for future medical expenses, we also conclude that plaintiff has failed to show with reasonable certainty what these expenses will be. The only evidence on this point is the testimony of the doctors that plaintiff’s condition will not improve and that at some distant date it may be necessary to place him in a nursing home where he can receive twenty-four hour attention. This testimony does not support an award for future medicals.
“Lastly, we turn to the question of quantum for plaintiff’s past, present and future physical and mental pain and suffering. Plaintiff was injured on April 23, 1965 and while he ultimately recovered from his whiplash injury his mental residuals have persisted with increasing severity. During the two years between the accident and the date of the'* trial-plaintiff had been confined to a mental institution on two occasions, totaling three and one half months.. The record is amply clear that he will never be able to return to nor enjoy the benefits of a natural and normal life. Considering all of the evidence and in an effort to do substantial justice under the circumstances we believe that he is entitled to an award as damages for such injuries in the amount of $31,500.00. See Faslund v. Kendrick, 169 So.2d 276 (1st La.App., 1964) and Allen et ux. v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, 137 So.2d 110 (3d La.App., 1962).”
The majority opinion amends the Court of Appeal award by an additional $17,-500.00, making a total award of $52,186.26, an increase of $43,450.10 over the $8,736.16 awarded by the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses.
With all due respect, this exceptional increase is an abuse of discretion.
Under the circumstances of this case, I-am of the opinion that the amount awarded-by the Court of Appeal should be accepted by this Court.
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679279. Public record. Not legal advice.