Case Name: Mrs. Florence Cloeman RAUCH, wife of/and Earl Rauch and Michael Rauch v. Mario G. ZERVIGON and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-05-10
Citations: 295 So. 2d 189
Docket Number: No. 6031
Parties: Mrs. Florence Cloeman RAUCH, wife of/and Earl Rauch and Michael Rauch v. Mario G. ZERVIGON and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
Judges: Before REDMANN, SCHOTT and MORTAL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 295
Pages: 189–190

Head Matter:
Mrs. Florence Cloeman RAUCH, wife of/and Earl Rauch and Michael Rauch v. Mario G. ZERVIGON and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
No. 6031.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
May 10, 1974.
See also, La.App. 284 So.2d 848.
Lambert J. Hassinger, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Edward P. Lobman, Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson, Snellings & Boisfontaine, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.
Before REDMANN, SCHOTT and MORTAL, JJ.

Opinion:
REDMANN, Judge.
This appeal and its answer question quantum of general damages for personal injury.
An internist testified that plaintiff wife suffered lacerations of forehead and scalp; a brain concussion which temporarily deprived her of "good contact with reality" and permanently destroyed all memory of the accident and 24 hours of treatment; knee bruising; pain from neck, shoulder and anterior chest wall muscle spasm, initially requiring frequent opiates; and aggravation of a depressive reaction, causing melancholy and withdrawal. However, the consulting orthopedist who first saw her five days after the accident found no objective signs of injury at that time except bruised knees. He found no muscle spasm until about five weeks post-accident. 'The orthopedist felt that voluntary restriction of neck movements (to avoid pain) "caused more muscle spasm, more tenseness and more discomfort and the snowball built." He found it not abnormal that her complaints lasted five months, and believed them sincere.
We conclude that the general damages award of $7,500 was not an abuse, either by excessiveness or inadequacy, of the trial court's "much discretion", C.C. art. 1934(3).
Affirmed.