Case Name: Giselle BROWN and Lorance Evans v. Alexander ZITO et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1976-06-09
Citations: 333 So. 2d 649
Docket Number: No. 7526
Parties: Giselle BROWN and Lorance Evans v. Alexander ZITO et al.
Judges: Before STOULIG, SCHOTT and BEER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 333
Pages: 649–653

Head Matter:
Giselle BROWN and Lorance Evans v. Alexander ZITO et al.
No. 7526.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
June 9, 1976.
Charles J. Ferrara, Metairie, and Edward P. Comeaux, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Law Office of Emile L. Turner, Jr., (Emile L. Turner, Jr.), New Orleans, for defendants-appellants (The Hertz Corp. and Alexander Zito).
Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson, Snellings & Boisfontaine (James Ryan III), New Orleans, for intervenor-appellee (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.).
Before STOULIG, SCHOTT and BEER, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Judge.
Defendants, Alexander Zito and The Hertz Corporation have appealed from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs for damages for personal injuries sustained by them in an automobile accident which occurred on December 6, 1973, in New Orleans, and in favor of State Farm Automobile Insurance Company which intervened to enforce subrogation. By consent before trial the suit was dismissed by plaintiffs against defendant Automobile Club of Southern California. Although liability was contested at the trial the only questions raised by defendants on appeal are as to the amounts of the awards to the two plaintiffs and the intervenor's right to sub-rogation.
Plaintiffs both consulted Dr. Sam C. Macaluso, a general surgeon on December 7, 1973, and were both discharged from treatment on March 13, 1974, after five examinations and 25 diathermy treatments for each. They both saw the doctor on the same dates for the stated reason that this was a matter of convenience to them.
As to Brown, Dr. Macaluso diagnosed a moderate lumbar sprain for which he prescribed muscle relaxants and restricted activities in addition to the diathermy treatments. On January 28, 1974, he found that she had muscle spasms. When he next saw her on March 13, after intervening diathermy treatments, she had no spasms and was released from further treatment.
As to plaintiff Evans, Dr. Macaluso diagnosed both lumbar and cervical sprains for which he prescribed muscle relaxants, pain relievers and restricted activities in addition to the diathermy treatments. Evans, like Brown, was found to have muscle spasms on January 28, but they were no longer present on the next examination on March 13.
Brown testified that she discharged herself from Dr. Macaluso's treatment because she felt that he had done as much for her as he could but that she was still hurting at the time of the trial, which prompted her to see a chiropractor one month before the trial.
Evans testified that he went back to work as a millwright immediately after the accident but was given light duties by his employer for one month. He likewise discontinued seeing Dr. Macaluso because he felt that the doctor had done as much for him as possible, but shortly after his discharge he began seeing a chiropractor because of continued difficulties.
The trial judge awarded to Brown $3700 and to Evans $4800, with $2400 allocated to each of the lumbar and cervical sprains. He commented that he was impressed with both plaintiffs and with Dr. Macaluso and explained that he awarded only $2400 for each sprain to Evans as opposed to $3700 to Brown because he classified Evans' sprains as mild and Brown's as moderate.
The thrust of defendants' argument is best illustrated by the following quotation from the brief filed by their counsel in this Court:
"This record is devoid of much of the circumstances which took place on the day of trial. After several extended pretrial conferences, the case could not be settled, even for the amounts recommended by the lower court. This set the stage for the demeanor of the court throughout the trial.
"The record will reflect several exchanges between the court and counsel of appellants. It is unfortunate, but not all comments of the court, some derogatory in nature, were recorded. At one point during cross-examination, the court yelled a commentary befitting of its attitude and thinking. There is no doubt in this writer's mind that the foundation was laid throughout this record to punish the defendant, The Hertz Corporation, for failing to settle.
"Looking at the injuries sustained, the length and type of treatment, the mere coincidence of each having the same number of treatments, examinations, complaints at the time of discharge and the use of chiropractors thereafter, the awards are punitive in nature and grossly excessive."
In oral argument counsel for defendants again contended that the awards were punitive because of his clients' failing to settle the cases.
Although there were some rather pointed exchanges between the court and counsel during the trial these are insufficient to support the serious charge which counsel makes. It is said that many of the statements made at the trial do not appear in the transcript but we are unable to decide cases beyond the four corners of the record. If the record supported counsel's charge there would be a basis for us to remand and order a new trial, but we cannot take this action on the basis of what is before us.
In conclusion, we are unable to say that the awards constitute an abuse of the much discretion accorded to trial-judges in assessing damages for personal injuries.
The judgment in favor of State Farm on its intervention was for $1429, consisting of $836 for automobile damage paid to Brown under the policy insuring against property damage and collision, and $298 and $295 paid to Brown and Evans respectively under the medical payments portion of the policy.
In support of its claim, State Farm filed in evidence subrogation receipts signed by plaintiffs referring to State Farm's policy and expressly subrogating all of their rights to State Farm to the extent of the payments.
Defendants' attack on the subrogation is based on the failure to place in evidence the policy and/or the drafts. Their argument is that the following requirements of LSA-C.C. art. 2160 were not met:
"1. When the creditor, receiving his payment from a third person, subrogates him in his rights, actions, privileges, and mortgages against the debtor; this sub-rogation must be expressed and made at the same time as the payment." (Emphasis supplied)
In Cooper v. Jennings Refining Co., 118 La. 181, 42 So. 766 (1907), the Court said:
"When article 2160, Civ.Code, says of conventional subrogation that 'it must be made at the same time as the payment,' it does not mean that the agreement of subrogation cannot be entered in before, or in anticipation of, the payment, but simply that it cannot be entered into after the payment. . . . The reason why it cannot be agreed to after the payment is that the debt is then extinguished, and can no longer be the subject or basis of an agreement."
Thus, defendants' somewhat novel argument is that in the absence of the policy there is no proof that plaintiffs were required to subrogate along with the other rights and obligations assumed by the parties to the contract and in the absence of the drafts there is no proof that they were not paid before the subrogation receipts were signed, in which case there might be no consideration given for the subrogation. Expressed in another way, if the payments were made solely in consideration for the premiums paid but without any contractual obligation on plaintiffs' part to subrogate no consideration was given by State Farm for its right of subrogation and the contract of subrogation cannot stand.
Undoubtedly, the far better procedure would have been for State Farm to place in evidence its policy and cancelled drafts, but this deficiency is not fatal to its case. The testimony and exhibits compel the conclusion that the policy provided as usual for subrogation. State Farm's adjuster testified as to how he investigated the loss and arrived at a value of Brown's automobile. Photographs of the vehicle taken by him, a bill for wrecker service, a "total loss settlement report" completed by him referring to Brown as the "Policyholder" and the subrogation receipts were received in evidence without objection. Brown testified that she was covered for "everything" including medical pay and collision insurance by State Farm and that following the loss she was paid $860 for the loss of her car and $313 for her medical payments, and she identified the subro-gation receipts which she signed.
This testimony also indicates the probability that the drafts and receipts were exchanged simultaneously. Furthermore, the wording of the receipts is that "for the consideration aforesaid and to the extent of said payment the undersigned further subrogates to said company . . . " clearly connoting that the exchange of draft and receipt occurred simultaneously and that the parties both acknowledged that the subrogation was supported by consideration.
Finally, defendants' argument was specifically rejected in Stephens v. Dore, 281 So.2d 889 (La.App.2nd Cir. 1973).
Accordingly the judgment appealed from is affirmed at defendants' cost.
AFFIRMED.