Grounds for Appeal: Preparing for Round Two

Lawsuits begin in the trial court. For that reason, the immediate focus remains in the trial court where the case will be decided by the jury or the trial judge. However, once the judgment is entered or the verdict reached, the focus quickly shifts to the appeals court. In many cases, what happens in the trial court is just “round one” and cases are often truly decided on appeal. This post will help to identify the types of issues considered when there is an appeal.If you’ve received a negative ruling in the trial court, you are not out of options. State and federal trial court decisions are subject to review by a court of appeals. Generally, when an appellate court reviews a decision, it looks for two things: 1) legal error; or 2) an improper finding of fact. Your chance of success on appeal increases when there is a significant legal error because a reviewing court will give a de novo review of the issue. In other words, you get a brand new “trial” on the issue presented when it involves a legal issue and not merely an interpretation of the evidence offered at trial.The chance of success on appeal decreases when there are no significant legal questions to resolve. In this situation, the trial court’s findings of fact will be respected unless “manifest error” is found. However, other grounds for an appeal do exist including, but not limited to, refusal to admit relevant evidence, refusal to admit an expert’s testimony, providing improper jury instructions or, in some cases, judicial bias toward a party.It is also important to know that your right to seek appellate relief is not only available after a trial. When a party can show that the trial court has made an error which will cause prejudice if not corrected before trial or demonstrate that a reversal of the ruling would resolve the entire claim against that party, they can file a “writ application.” While similar to an appeal, a writ is a streamlined process. When the case presents a new or novel issue of law, the chances of having the appellate court consider the writ increases dramatically.The written brief--the appellate brief (for final judgments) and the writ application (for pre-trial rulings)–is the centerpiece of any request for appellate relief. It is critical that the brief be well-reasoned and persuasive. Appeals often involve oral argument, but, even then, the arguments typically center around issues addressed in the written briefs.When you are in the throes of the fight in the trial court, it is important to remember that another “round” may be coming. Keeping this focus helps to preserve and develop arguments and evidence that may be needed on appeal. Whether you won or lost in the trial court, know that the real fight may just be beginning.Reynolds LeBlanc is an Associate Attorney with Keogh Cox heavily involved in appellate practice. The attorneys at Keogh Cox have decades of combined experience representing clients in federal, state, and administrative appeals. The appeals practice by Keogh Cox attorneys has resulted in positive, landmark rulings in a variety of settings to include: the proper scope of who can administer interventional pain management (Spine Diagnostics Ctr. of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Louisiana State Bd. of Nursing ex rel. Louisiana Dep't of Health & Hosps., 2007-0183 (La. 3/16/07), 952 So. 2d 702, handled by John P. Wolff III,Chad A. Sullivan and Nancy Brehm Gilbert); the extent to which employers will be protected by the immunity provided by worker’s compensation (Reeves v. Structural Pres. Sys., 98-1795 (La. 3/12/99), 731 So. 2d 208, handled by Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc); the establishment of mitigation defenses available to attorneys in legal malpractice claims (MB Indus., LLC v. CNA Ins. Co., 2011-0303 (La. 10/25/11), 74 So. 3d 1173, handled by Gracella Gail Simmons and Collin J. LeBlanc); and, the preservation of water rights under the Federal Powers Act (Simmons v. Sabine River Auth. of Louisiana, 134 S. Ct. 1876, 188 L. Ed. 2d 912 (2014), handled by John P. Wolff III and Nancy Brehm Gilbert), along with others.

In Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, the Louisiana Supreme Court re-examined how Louisiana courts should review general damage awards. The Court noted its decision also was intended to clarify its prior ruling in in Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., which addressed the same issue. To review our prior analysis of the Court’s holding in Pete, click here.

Traditionally, Louisiana has required a two-step analysis for appellate review of a lower court’s damage awards. First, the appellate court must determine whether the trier of fact “abused its discretion” in assessing damages. Courts generally found a damage award abused discretion if it “shocked the conscience,” a standard critics argued was too subjective. Second, and only if the award “shocked the conscience,” courts could consider prior awards to establish the highest or lowest reasonable award.

In Pete, the Court held that courts of appeal should compare verdicts to general damage awards in similar cases during the first step of analysis to determine whether a trial court abused its discretion. This approach suggested general damage awards should not be solely based on the subjective findings of the jury but should be grounded in objective comparisons to other cases. It was thought this also served the purpose of maintaining consistency and reasonableness of damage awards. The Pete decision was seen by many as an attempt to address Louisiana's trend of rising verdicts, which critics argued were contributing to higher insurance premiums in the state.

However, in Barber Bros., the Supreme Court revisited these issues, when it examined a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $10.75 million in general damages, $2.5 million to his wife for loss of consortium, and $1.5 million to each of their two children. The jury found the plaintiff sustained extensive physical injuries and a traumatic brain injury, which significantly impacted his personality, lifestyle, and self-image.

Citing Pete, the Louisiana Supreme Court initially reduced the awards to $5 million for the plaintiff, $400,000 for his wife, and $100,000 for each child. However, upon rehearing, the Court reinstated the original general damages award. Citing Pete again, the court clarified how damage awards should be reviewed on appeal as follows: (1) courts should determine whether abuse of discretion occurred by examining the particular facts and circumstances of the case, to include a “consideration of prior awards in similar cases,” and (2) if abuse of discretion is found, “the court is to then also consider those prior awards to determine ‘the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion.’”

The Court clarified that the consideration of prior awards should be balanced with an examination of the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Considering the facts of Barber Bros., the Court held it did not adequately account for the effects of the plaintiff’s injuries upon initial hearing. While the jury award was “on the high end of the range of reasonable awards,” the court found it was not disproportionate to prior awards and “bore a reasonable relationship” to the evidence presented at trial. Thus, the award did not “shock the conscience” and should not have been adjusted following the initial hearing.

The Barber Bros. decision may be limited to the facts presented in that case. However, the ruling appears to suggest that prior verdicts are only a factor to be weighed against a case’s facts to assess whether a trial court abused its discretion with a general damage award that “shocks the conscience.” While the court did not overturn Pete, the Barber Bros. case appears to re-open the door for damage awards to be based upon more subjective assessments of the jury and not the more objective standards the Pete decision initially appeared to create. It remains to be seen how much weight prior decisions will carry when courts address these issues moving forward.

References:

Barber Brothers Contracting Company, LLC v. Capitol City Produce Company, LLC, 23-788 (La. 12/19/24), 397 So. 3d 404.

Pete v. Boland Marine & Mfg. Co., 23-170 (La. 10/20/23), 379 So. 3d 636, reh'g denied, 23-170 (La. 12/7/23), 374 So. 3d 135.

Recently, a Louisiana appellate court found that images fromGoogle Earth images were admissible. In Walker v. S.G.B.C., LLC,2019-506 (La.App. 3Cir. 2/5/20); --- So.3d ---, 2020 WL 563818, theLouisiana Third Circuit rejected a challenge to the use of the images on thebasis that they were not properly authenticated.

In this case, the plaintiff sought recognition of ahistorical servitude of passage from his landlocked property. During the trial,the plaintiff offered Google Earth images of the property to show a gravelpathway on the alleged right of way. The images were dated January 2004,November 2005, and December 2017. Multiple witnesses identified the pathon the images. Thereafter, the trial court admitted the images into evidenceover the defendant’s objections.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the images were notproperly authenticated under La. C.E. art. 901 because the plaintiff did not:(1) have the creator of the images testify to their authenticity; (2) get acertification from Google that the images were what they purported to be; and(3) have an expert testify that the images were accurate depictions of whatthey claimed to be.

The Walker court affirmed the trial court ruling thatthese images were admissible. Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 901(B)(1)provides the testimony of a witness with personal knowledge may supply theauthentication of evidence required for its admission. Because the plaintiffidentified various landmarks on each image, and each image was subsequentlyrecognized by multiple witnesses (including the defendant’s witnesses), theCourt concluded there was sufficient support for finding the images authentic.

In Walker, the precise dates the photographs were taken were not critical. Under different facts, courts may choose to apply the authentication rules of Article 901 more stringently.

Chris Jones is a partner with Keogh Cox in Baton Rouge, LA. He focuses his practice on class actions and mass torts, and handles these matters in courts throughout the country. He is a life-long resident of Baton Rouge, where he lives with his wife and four children.