Case Name: Andree DiVINCENTI v. Patricia K. DESFORGES et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1979-05-04
Citations: 372 So. 2d 606
Docket Number: No. 9823
Parties: Andree DiVINCENTI v. Patricia K. DESFORGES et al.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, REDMANN, LEM-MON, STOULIG and BEER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 372
Pages: 606–610

Head Matter:
Andree DiVINCENTI v. Patricia K. DESFORGES et al.
No. 9823.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
May 4, 1979.
Rehearing Denied July 12, 1979.
Pitard, Pitard & Porobil, Robert F. Pi-tard, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Ronald L. Ronzello, Metairie, for defendants-appellants.
Before SAMUEL, REDMANN, LEM-MON, STOULIG and BEER, JJ.

Opinion:
STOULIG, Judge.
Defendants, Patricia Desforges and her . liability insurer, Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey, have appealed a judgment awarding plaintiff, Andree DiVincen-ti, $12,500 damages she incurred as the result of an accident of April 16,1976. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was a guest passenger in a vehicle driven by Patricia Desforges that rear-ended another vehicle. Liability was stipulated; therefore, the only question before the trial court was what damages plaintiff sustained.
The trial court concluded plaintiff suffered " a moderate to severe lum-bosacral strain which was superimposed upon and further aggravated a pre-existing degenerative disc condition (at L-5-S-1)."
The medical testimony supports this conclusion. Dr. John Jackson, a neurological surgeon, diagnosed a disc condition and his testimony, together with that of Dr. Roy Clay, her treating physician, are sufficient to support her claim that the automobile accident caused a severe aggravation of a back injury from which she was almost asymptomatic when she was reinjured as a guest passenger.
Appellants argue appellee exaggerated the extent of her injury, and the fact that she took an automobile trip to Mexico in August 1976 establishes plaintiff was not suffering the excruciating pain which she claims stemmed from the April injury. When questioned on this point, Dr. Jackson said that an automobile trip of this nature would not be painful in her condition provided she traveled in a reclining position. Plaintiff testified that she made the trip propped on pillows on the back seat of a large passenger car. It is apparent from both medical witnesses' testimony that they did not question the sincerity of her complaints of pain;
With respect to special damages, appellants argue plaintiff failed to establish her lost wages by a preponderance of the evidence. Prior to her accident, plaintiff had been employed by defendant Patricia Des-forges to manage a dress shop, and both testified that because of her back pain the hours appellee worked diminished after the accident. From the testimony it is apparent that plaintiff's time cards could have been produced to establish the exact amount of lost wages. Although Ms. Des-forges, after testifying, stated she would bring the records to court later that day, they were never produced. She stated plaintiff told her to forget the records.
According to plaintiff she had worked for $650 per month at the Lazy Bug shop and even before the accident, this was changed to an hourly rate. Had the records been produced, it would appear a judgment for the lost wages together with the general damages should have been significantly higher. In lumping together both general and special damages in the $12,500 award, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion because the record clearly establishes there actually was a wage loss, and the trial judge found as a fact plaintiff suffered a painful back injury as a result of the accident.
The principle of appellate review enunciated in Canter v. Koehring Company, 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973), as further defined in Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978), states the basic premise we follow in reviewing a judgment based on factual conclusions, namely, credibility find ings supported by the record should not be disturbed on appeal. Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc., 341 So.2d 332 (La.1976), further stresses that quantum amendments on the appellate level are limited to cases where the trial court abuses the "much discretion" vested in it by C.C. art. 1934.
The award of $12,500 is reasonable in this case. That plaintiff had a pre-exist-ing back injury is of no moment, because the medical evidence shows her problem was almost in remission when the accident occurred. Immediately after this her symp-tomatology became acute. Her treating physician testified the accident was the cause of the re-injury, and the neurosurgeon affirmed the type of trauma she suffered could produce these symptoms. In Taylor v. Rome, 303 So.2d 844 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1974), the court noted that the tort-fea-sor takes the victim as he finds him and a pre-existing injury will not bar recovery. Once plaintiff establishes the trauma of the accident activated or aggravated the preexisting ailment, she is entitled to damages for the re-injury.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellants' cost.
AFFIRMED.
LEMMON, J., concurs with written reasons.
REDMANN, J., dissents with written reasons.
BEER, J., dissents with written reasons.