Opinion ID: 381381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Abracadabra: The Mysterious Disappearance Of The Erie Doctrine

Text: 26 Apparently ignoring the Erie Doctrine 16 and pertinent precedent, the trial court refused to allow testimony of the potential impact of inflation on plaintiff's damage award, and refused to charge the jury with respect to the ever-decreasing purchasing power of the dollar. 17 As an explanation of his decision, the judge noted that the evidence of inflation was simply too speculative, and that 27 Under federal law, such evidence is not admissible; and plaintiff claims that it should be admitted under state law, this being a diversity case. And I can only say that if the State Courts of Louisiana apply it, let them apply it. As far as this court is concerned, it's entirely too speculative . . . to be competent evidence. 28 Trial Transcript at 362. Plaintiff-appellant argues that such a ruling was error, and we agree. 29 It is clear that under the Erie Doctrine, state law governs the measure of damages, including the admissibility and jury consideration of evidence of inflation. Weakley v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 515 F.2d 1260, 1267 (5th Cir. 1975). In Louisiana, it has long been the rule that evidence of inflation is admissible, and that the jury may consider the decreasing purchasing power of the dollar in determining damages. See Rogers v. Hiram J. Allen Lumber Co., 129 La. 900, 57 So. 166 (1912); Roundtree v. Technical Welding & Fabrication Co., 364 So.2d 1325, 1334 (La.App.1978) (4th Cir.), writ denied, 367 So.2d 389 (La.1979); Johnson v. International Insurance Co., 347 So.2d 1279, 1282-84 (La.App.) (1st Cir.), writ denied, 350 So.2d 1225 (La.1977); Blanchard v. Rodrigue, 340 So.2d 1001, 1005 (La.App.1976) (1st Cir.), writ denied, 341 So.2d 1129-30 (La.1977); Loetzerich v. Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal Railroad, 325 So.2d 626, 628-29 (La.App.) (4th Cir.), writ denied, 329 So.2d 469 (La.1976); Barnett v. Trinity Universal Insurance Co., 286 So.2d 770, 778 (La.App.) (2d Cir.), writ denied, 287 So.2d 528 (La.1973); Zagar v. Romero, 134 So.2d 696, 699 (La.App.1961) (3d Cir.). It was therefore error for the trial judge to refuse to allow the jury to consider inflation, 18 and we reverse and remand for a new trial on damages. 19