Recognition of Loss of Enjoyment of Life as a Separate Element of General Damages in Louisiana Wrongful Death Actions

Recognition of Loss of Enjoyment of Life as a Separate Element of General Damages in Louisiana Wrongful Death Actions

Introduction

The landmark case of Betty McGEE, et al. v. A C AND S, INC., et al. (933 So. 2d 770) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Louisiana on July 10, 2006, addresses a pivotal issue in wrongful death and survival actions: whether loss of enjoyment of life can be recovered as a separate element of general damages. This case involved the plaintiffs—the widow and children of James Edward McGee—seeking damages for injuries and subsequent death caused by asbestos exposure from the defendants' products. The crux of the litigation centered on the admissibility and separateness of loss of enjoyment of life in the damages awarded.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that loss of enjoyment of life is indeed recoverable as a separate element of general damages and can be included as a distinct line item on a jury verdict form. The court reversed the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which had erroneously deemed such a separate award as unlawful. The Supreme Court of Louisiana emphasized that loss of enjoyment of life falls within the existing framework of general damages and distinguished it from other components like mental and physical pain and suffering. The court underscored that while there is a divergence among various circuits, the majority supports the separate consideration of loss of enjoyment of life in compensatory damages.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively reviewed precedents from various circuits to establish the standing of loss of enjoyment of life as a separate compensable element. Notable among these is Matos v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co. and Andrews v. Mosley Well Serv. from the Third, First, Second, and Fifth Circuits, all of which upheld the separateness of loss of enjoyment of life from general damages. The Fourth Circuit, however, diverged in cases like Koepp v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. and Smith v. Juneau, arguing that such damages were inherently duplicative of pain and suffering. The Supreme Court of Louisiana aligned with the majority view, rejecting the Fourth Circuit's stance and reinforcing the separateness based on broader jurisprudential support.

Legal Reasoning

The court grounded its reasoning in the definitions provided by Louisiana Civil Code articles, particularly La. C.C. art. 2315, which mandates compensation for damages resulting from a tort. Distinguishing between special and general damages, the court clarified that loss of enjoyment of life aligns with general damages due to its speculative nature and inability to be quantified precisely. The court further differentiated loss of enjoyment from mental and physical pain and suffering by highlighting its unique impact on an individual's lifestyle and participation in previously enjoyed activities. This conceptual distinction justified its treatment as a separate compensable element.

Impact

The decision sets a significant precedent in Louisiana tort law by affirming that plaintiffs in wrongful death and survival actions can seek compensation for loss of enjoyment of life distinctly from other general damages. This enhances the scope of recoverable damages, allowing for more comprehensive compensation that reflects the multifaceted impact of the defendant's actions on the plaintiff's life. It also clarifies the jury's role in discerning and awarding such damages, thereby influencing future litigation strategies and jury instructions in similar cases across Louisiana.

Additionally, this ruling harmonizes Louisiana's stance with the majority of other circuits, potentially fostering greater consistency in appellate interpretations nationwide. However, it acknowledges the ongoing debate and varying approaches among different jurisdictions, indicating that the legal landscape regarding hedonic damages remains complex and nuanced.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Loss of Enjoyment of Life

Often referred to as hedonic damages, loss of enjoyment of life refers to the negative changes in a person's lifestyle or their inability to engage in previously enjoyed activities due to an injury or wrongful act. This can include giving up hobbies, sports, social activities, or any pleasurable aspects of life that were part of the individual's routine before the incident.

General vs. Special Damages

Special damages are quantifiable losses such as medical expenses and lost wages, which have a specific market value. In contrast, general damages cover non-quantifiable losses like pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, which cannot be easily measured in monetary terms.

Wrongful Death and Survival Actions

Wrongful death actions allow family members to seek compensation for their own losses resulting from the victim's death, such as loss of companionship or support. Survival actions allow the estate to recover damages that the deceased could have claimed had they survived, covering the victim's own losses from injury up to the time of death.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Louisiana's ruling in Betty McGEE, et al. v. A C AND S, INC., et al. establishes that loss of enjoyment of life is a distinct and recoverable component of general damages in wrongful death and survival actions. By differentiating it from other forms of general damages such as mental and physical pain and suffering, the court ensures that plaintiffs receive comprehensive compensation that accurately reflects the multifaceted impact of their losses. This judgment not only aligns Louisiana with the majority of jurisdictions recognizing hedonic damages but also addresses the complexities and potential for duplicative recoveries, thereby refining the framework for assessing and awarding compensatory damages in personal injury law.

Case Details

Year: 2006
Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Judge(s)

KIMBALL, Justice.Page 1 KNOLL, Justice, additionally concurring.Page 1 VICTORY, J., dissenting.Page 1 WEIMER, J., dissenting.Page 1

Attorney(S)

Roussel Roussel, Gerolyn P. Roussel, Perry J. Roussel, Jr., Angelique R. Duhon, LaPlace, for Applicant. Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere Denegre, William L. Schuette, Jr., Leon Gary, Jr., James C. Percy, Michael W. Crosby, New Orleans, Olivia L. Smith, Denver, CO.; Bernard, Cassisa, Elliott Davis, Stephen N. Elliott, Ann M. Sico, Metairie; Simon, Peragine, Smith Redfearn, Susan B. Kohn, Douglas R. Kinler, New Orleans; Montgomery, Barnett, Brown, Read, Hammond Mintz, Lawrence G. Pugh, III, New Orleans; Lynn Luker Associates, Lynn M. Luker, New Orleans, Francine M. Giugno, for Respondent. Joy Goldberg Braun, New Orleans, for Amicus Curiae, Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (PLAC). Phil S. Goldberg, Mark A. Behrens, Washington, D.C., Kaye N. Courington, New Orleans, and Victor E. Schwartz, for Amici Curiae, Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce of the United States, American Chemistry Council, American Insurance Association, and Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. Patricia Cowen Penton, Richard Marshall Perles, Gary Allen Lee and Anita Ann Cates, New Orleans, for Amicus Curiae, Pete Territo. David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Baton Rouge, and William Shelby McKenzie, for Amici Curiae, National Association of Manufacturers, Louisiana Chemical Association, National Petrochemical Refiners Association, Louisiana Independent Oil Gas Association, Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, Caterpillar, Inc., Conoco Phillips, Dow Chemical Company, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Georgia Pacific Corporation and Union Carbide Corporation. Maureen Noonan Harbourt and Gary A. Bezet, Baton Rouge, for Amici Curiae, Louisiana Chemical Association, Exxon Mobil Corporation and Shell Oil Company. Jason Taylor Little, Christopher T. Grace, III, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Brian Carl Bossier, and Tara Nunez Smith, Mandeville, for Amicus Curiae Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Inc. Joseph Henry Hart, IV, New Orleans, Ryan C. Wallis, and Lawrence Emerson Abbott, New Orleans, for Amicus Curiae, E.I. DuPont De Nemours Co. R. Dean Church, Jr., New Orleans, for Amicus Curiae, O-I f/k/a Owens Illinois, Inc. James L. Ellis, Baton Rouge, for Ascension Chamber of Commerce, Bqaton Rouge Area Chamber, et al., and Ascension Economic Development Corporation. Walter R. House, Jr., for Louisiana Department of Economic Development.

Comments