MANUEL v. CORTEZ (2026)

This matter arises from an automobile accident that occurred on December 17, 2020. Appellant Jay Cortez rear-ended the vehicle being driven by Appellee Joe Fontenot. Appellee Kevin Manuel was a passenger in Mr. Fontenot's vehicle. Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel (Appellees) filed separate personal injury lawsuits against Mr. Cortez, Sterling Automotive Group, Inc., and New York Marine and General Ins. Co. (Appellants), which were consolidated prior to trial. After a trial on the merits, the jury returned a verdict on August 22, 2024, finding Mr. Cortez to be 50% at fault and Mr. Fontenot 50% at fault for causing the accident and awarding both Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel past medical expenses and future medical expenses. However, the jury failed to award either Appellee general damages for past and/or future pain and suffering.

Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel each filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV), or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial. A hearing was held on these motions on December 2, 2024, after which the trial court took the matter under advisement. On December 16, 2024, the trial court rendered judgment granting the motions for JNOV. The trial court then reviewed the record de novo and found Mr. Cortez to be 100% at fault for the cause of the accident. The trial court also increased the past and future medical expense awards for both Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel and awarded them both amounts for past and future pain and suffering. The trial court noted in its reasons for judgment that the motions for new trial were rendered moot by the granting of the motions for JNOV.

Appellants have appealed the trial court's judgment granting the motions for JNOV, finding Mr. Cortez to be 100% at fault for the accident, and increasing the awards for medical expenses and general damages. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On the evening of December 17, 2020, Mr. Fontenot and a crew of men—Mr. Manuel, Cory Vidrine, and Joseph Bourque—were returning home to Eunice from Lake Charles, where they had been repairing homes damaged by Hurricane Laura. Mr. Fontenot was driving his 2004 Chevrolet Silverado eastbound on Highway 190 going towards Eunice. Mr. Vidrine's house was located on Highway 190 but on the westbound side. In order to drop Mr. Vidrine and Mr. Bourque off at Mr. Vidrine's house, Mr. Fontenot made a u-turn on Highway 190 so that he was then heading westbound. Mr. Fontenot then pulled his pick-up truck onto the right-hand shoulder of Highway 190 in front of Mr. Vidrine's driveway. Mr. Vidrine and Mr. Bourque exited the pickup truck, and Mr. Manuel, who had been sitting in the back seat, moved into the front passenger seat. Mr. Fontenot first pulled from the shoulder into the right-hand lane of Highway 190 and then moved into the left-hand lane in order to make a u-turn into the eastbound lanes of Highway 190. Testimony presented at trial indicated that Mr. Fontenot was traveling approximately 15 to 27 miles per hour. The speed limit on Highway 190 is 65 miles per hour.

At the same time, Mr. Cortez was driving westbound in the left-hand lane on Highway 190 on his way home from work. He was driving a 2019 Ford Fusion owned by his employer, Sterling Automotive Group, Inc. Evidence presented at trial indicated that he had his cruise control set to 73 miles per hour and was on the phone with AT&T's customer service. Mr. Fontenot testified at trial that he saw Mr. Cortez's headlights behind him as he pulled back onto Highway 190 from the shoulder. As Mr. Fontenot pulled into the left-hand lane of the highway and slowed down, intending to turn left at the next crossover, he was rear-ended by Mr. Cortez's vehicle. Mr. Cortez testified that he did not see Mr. Fontenot's truck until right before impact.

A jury trial for these consolidated matters started on August 19, 2024. On August 22, 2024, after hearing testimony from numerous witnesses, doctors, and experts, the jury returned a unanimous verdict allocating fault equally between Mr. Cortez and Mr. Fontenot and awarding the following damages:

A Judgment was signed on September 25, 2024, in which it was ordered that “the award of damages shall be reduced by the parties’ comparative fault,” 50%. Thus, the judgment ordered the defendants to pay Mr. Fontenot a total of $49,637.58 and to pay Mr. Manuel a total of $31,972.15.

In response to the jury's verdict, Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel each filed motions for JNOV. They first argued in their motions that the jury ignored the overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence that Mr. Cortez was 100% at fault for the accident. They further suggested that after finding Mr. Cortez and Mr. Fontenot to each be 50% at fault for the accident, the jury then incorrectly reduced the past and future medical expense awards by 50% on the verdict form without realizing that the court's judgment would further reduce the medical expense awards by 50%. Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel argued that the evidence confirmed that all past medical treatment was reasonable and necessary to treat the injuries sustained by them in the accident. Additionally, they argued that all evidence and testimony presented at trial supported their claims for future medical expenses. Thus, the jury abused its discretion in awarding such small amounts of past and future medical expenses. Finally, Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel argued that the jury erred when it failed to award Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel any general damages for their pain and suffering even though the jury found that they had suffered injuries as a result of the accident, proven by the fact that the jury awarded past and future medical expenses. Thus, Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel asked the trial court to grant their motions for JNOV, find Mr. Cortez to be 100% at fault for the accident, and increase their awards for past and future medical expenses, as well as award general damages for their pain and suffering.

The trial court heard the motions for JNOV on December 2, 2024, after which it took the matter under advisement. On December 16, 2024, the trial court rendered written reasons for judgment granting the motions for JNOV because “the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of FONTENOT and MANUEL and reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict[.]”

Reviewing first the verdict finding Mr. Fontenot to be 50% at fault for the accident, the trial court found that the facts and inferences pointed overwhelmingly in favor of Mr. Fontenot and that Mr. Cortez was 100% at fault for causing the accident. Regarding the awards for medical expenses, the trial court found that both Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel presented certified medical records and billing which established their past medical expenses to be $136,550.29 and $97,888.00, respectively. The trial court further found that the expert testimony presented at trial established Mr. Fontenot's future medical expenses to be $211,926.30 and Mr. Manuel's to be $371,004.00. Finally, the trial court noted that “both MANUEL and FONTENOT were awarded nothing for general damages despite extensive medical damages.” The trial court found this to be an error of law and awarded Mr. Fontenot $350,000.00 and Mr. Manuel $250,000.00 for past and future pain and suffering.

Following the trial court's reasons for judgment, a judgment was signed on January 14, 2025, granting the motions for JNOV filed on behalf of Mr. Fontenot and Mr. Manuel, decreeing that Mr. Cortez was 100% at fault for the accident, and awarding the following damages:

Mr. Cortez, Sterling Automotive Group, Inc., and New York Marine and General Insurance Company have appealed the trial court's judgment, asserting the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in granting Plaintiffs’ motions for JNOV as to the jury's allocation of fault.

2. The trial court erred in granting Plaintiffs’ motions for JNOV as to the jury's awards of future medical expenses.

3. The trial court abused its discretion in the amount of general damages awarded to Plaintiffs, as those awards were predicated on erroneously granted future medical expenses that the jury properly denied.

DISCUSSION

JNOV

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1811 provides for the filing of a motion for JNOV once the jury has returned a verdict. A motion for JNOV “may be granted on the issue of liability or on the issue of damages or on both issues.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 1811(F). Article 1811 does not, however, set forth the standard by which a trial court shall decide whether to grant or deny a JNOV. Thus, we must look to the jurisprudence for guidance. The supreme court addressed the criteria to be used when deciding whether to grant a JNOV in Anderson v. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 583 So.2d 829, 832 (La.1991):

A JNOV is warranted when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The motion should be granted only when the evidence points so strongly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not reach different conclusions, not merely when there is a preponderance of evidence for the mover. If there is evidence opposed to the motion which is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. Scott [v. Hospital Service District No. 1, 496 So.2d 270 (La.1986)]. In making this determination, the court should not evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.

The court also set forth in Anderson the standard to be used by the appellate courts when reviewing whether the trial court properly granted a JNOV:

In reviewing a JNOV, the appellate court must first determine if the trial court erred in granting the JNOV. This is done by using the aforementioned criteria just as the trial judge does in deciding whether to grant the motion or not, i.e. do the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, then the trial judge was correct in granting the motion. If, however, reasonable men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach a different conclusion, then it was error to grant the motion and the jury verdict should be reinstated.

Id.

Allocation of Fault

In their first assignment of error, Appellants assert that the trial court erred in granting the motions for JNOV as to the jury's allocation of fault. The jury determined that Mr. Cortez and Mr. Fontenot were each 50% at fault for causing the December 17, 2020 accident. The trial court, however, granted Mr. Fontenot's and Mr. Manuel's motions for JNOV and assigned 100% of the fault to Mr. Cortez. After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court erred in granting the JNOV on this issue as it was not unreasonable for the jury to find Mr. Fontenot 50% at fault for the cause of the accident.

Conflicting evidence was presented at trial regarding how fast Mr. Fontenot was traveling when he pulled out in front of Mr. Cortez's vehicle that night. At trial, Mr. Fontenot testified that he was unsure how fast he was going when he pulled out from the shoulder and made his way to the left-hand lane of Highway 190 because he wasn't paying attention to his speedometer.¹ On cross-examination, Mr. Fontenot was questioned about prior statements he made at the scene of the accident and at his deposition that he was traveling between 10 and 15 miles per hour in the left-hand lane. Mr. Fontenot claimed that when he made the statement to the responding officer, “I was dazed and still kind of woosie at the time[,] I just threw a number out there.” He further claimed that “in the deposition I was nervous uh, under heavy medication at the time․. Uh, I mean, like I said when I told the trooper what I was - - the speed I just throw a number out there and you too I mean, I just - - I wasn't thinking - - I wasn't thinking before I talked.”

There was also conflicting testimony about how far away Mr. Cortez's vehicle was before Mr. Fontenot pulled out onto Highway 190 from the shoulder. Mr. Fontenot testified at trial that he checked his mirrors before pulling out from the shoulder and “seen there was some headlights in the distance so I knew I had plenty of time, it was safe to get over.” On cross-examination, Mr. Fontenot was questioned about his prior statements to the responding officer and in his deposition testimony that when he pulled out onto Highway 190, Mr. Cortez's vehicle was three to four car lengths behind him. Again, Mr. Fontenot responded that the reason he said three to four car lengths is that he was “dazed and confused and stuff and I just threw a number out there.” Mr. Fontenot maintained at trial that the headlights of the vehicle he saw behind him were actually further away than three or four car lengths and that Mr. Cortez “was way down the road before I even pulled out into the right lane.”

Mr. Cortez admitted at trial that his cruise control was set at 73 miles per hour at the time of the accident, which exceeded the 65 mile per hour speed limit, and that he was traveling in the left-hand lane. Testimony was also introduced at trial by an AT&T employee that Mr. Cortez's cell phone was in use at the time of the accident. AT&T's records produced at trial show that Mr. Cortez was on the phone with AT&T's customer service, although Mr. Cortez testified at trial that he was connected to the phone via Bluetooth and, thus, was using his phone hands-free. Mr. Cortez further testified that he did not see Mr. Fontenot's pick-up truck until a split second before impact.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have reasonably concluded that both Mr. Cortez and Mr. Fontenot were at fault for causing the accident. Mr. Cortez was speeding in the left lane and may have been distracted by his cell phone. Mr. Fontenot, on the other hand, pulled onto the highway traveling at an extremely low rate of speed and directly into the oncoming path of a speeding vehicle. Mr. Fontenot knew the vehicle was approaching from behind and yet still pulled in front of him, intending to slow down to turn left at the next cross over. Mr. Fontenot attempted to cross two-lanes of travel at a very low rate of speed and over the very short distance of only 173 feet.

When determining whether to grant a JNOV, the trial court “should not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and all reasonable inferences or factual questions should be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.” Anderson, 583 So.2d at 832.

For these reasons, we reverse the trial court's decision finding Mr. Cortez to be 100% at fault, and reinstate the jury's verdict finding Mr. Cortez and Mr. Fontenot to each be 50% at fault for the cause of the accident.

Future Medical Expenses

Appellants next argue that the trial court erred in granting the motions for JNOV as to the jury's awards for future medical expenses.² After granting a JNOV on this issue, the trial court increased Mr. Fontenot's future medical expenses award from $31,000.00 to $211,926.30, and increased Mr. Manuel's future medical expenses award from $15,000.00 to $371,000.00. Appellants argue that while the trial court awarded the full amounts listed in Mr. Fontenot's and Mr. Manuel's lifecare plans, the jury “deliberately limited its future medical awards to conservative treatment—a decision well-supported by the record and squarely within the jury's discretion as factfinder.”

In discussing the standard of review when determining whether the trial court correctly granted a JNOV on the issue of damages, the Anderson court stated:

The appellate court, in determining whether the trial court erred in granting the JNOV as to quantum, once again uses the criteria set forth in Scott, [496 So.2d 270], i.e., could reasonable men in the exercise of impartial judgment differ as to the fact that the jury award was either abusively high or abusively low. If the answer is in the affirmative, then the trial court erred in granting the JNOV, and the jury's damage award should be reinstated.

Anderson, 583 So.2d at 834.

We find that the trial court erred in granting a JNOV on the issue of future medical expenses. A review of the record shows that impartial jurors could have reasonably concluded that the future surgeries recommended by Appellees’ doctors were either unnecessary and/or that Appellees did not intend to undergo those recommended surgeries. The future medical expenses awarded by the jury followed a more conservative treatment plan and were not abusively low.

Mr. Fontenot

Mr. Fontenot had a long history of back pain and injuries, as evidenced by the testimony and medical records produced at trial. At the time of this December 17, 2020 accident, Mr. Fontenot was already receiving treatment from his chiropractor, Dr. Joseph Turk, Sr., due to a similar motor vehicle accident which occurred in June of 2020 which resulted in similar injuries. Mr. Fontenot also admitted to undergoing surgery on his lower back in 1998, as well as being involved in at least two other motor vehicle accidents in 2000 and 2017.

Mr. Fontenot's neurosurgeon, Dr. William Brennan, acknowledged at trial that the December 17, 2020 accident aggravated Mr. Fontenot's preexisting chronic back problem. He recommended that Mr. Fontenot undergo two surgeries, one on his neck and one on his back, to alleviate the pain Mr. Fontenot was currently experiencing. However, it was noted at trial that Mr. Fontenot had still not scheduled either surgery, almost four years after the accident.

Dr. Thomas V. Bertuccini was hired by Appellants to conduct a medical examination of Mr. Fontenot. At trial, Dr. Bertuccini opined that Mr. Fontenot “was not an operative candidate; that is, he didn't need a surgical operation because there was nothing that we could identify as the source of pain that an operation could fix.”

When making credibility determinations, great deference must be granted to the jury as the trier of fact. Menard v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 09-1869 (La. 3/16/10), 31 So.3d 996. See also, Giavotella v. Mitchell, 19-100 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/24/19), 289 So.3d 1058, writ denied, 19-1855 (La. 1/22/20), 291 So.3d 1044. Based on the above, we find that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Mr. Fontenot either did not intend to undergo the recommended surgeries and/or did not require the recommended surgeries to fix his ongoing chronic back pain. There was also testimony from multiple doctors that Mr. Fontenot suffered from ongoing back problems long before this accident. During deliberations, the jury requested Mr. Fontenot's life care plan, suggesting that they considered which conservative treatments Mr. Fontenot might need in the future while subtracting any future surgical expenses.

Mr. Manuel

Neck and back surgeries were also recommended for Mr. Manuel by his neurosurgeon, Dr. Jayme Trahan, as a result of injuries he sustained in the December 17, 2020 accident. There is some indication that Mr. Manuel may also need surgery on his left shoulder. While Mr. Manuel has already undergone a successful surgery to repair injuries to his right shoulder, it was noted that Mr. Manuel had not yet scheduled any other surgeries at the time of trial, almost four years after the accident.

Testimony was presented at trial by Mr. Manuel, his treating physicians, and his treating mental health professional regarding his anxiety concerning doctors and being put to sleep for surgical procedures. As a child, Mr. Manuel was molested by a doctor over the course of several years.³ This trauma caused Mr. Manuel to be distrustful of doctors and experience extreme anxiety when faced with the prospect of surgery. When Mr. Manuel attempted to undergo surgery for his right shoulder, his blood pressure was so high that the surgery had to be rescheduled. After therapy and blood pressure medication, Mr. Manuel was able to go through with the rescheduled surgery.

In addition, Mr. Manuel admitted to smoking about half a pack of cigarettes a day. Dr. Trahan testified that he is reluctant to perform any surgeries on Mr. Manuel until he quits smoking because the use of nicotine impedes the healing process.

Dr. Bertuccini was also hired by Appellants to conduct a medical examination of Mr. Manuel. As with Mr. Fontenot, Dr. Bertuccini opined that, although injured in this accident, Mr. Manuel was not a surgical candidate because he did not exhibit any type of surgically treatable problem. Dr. Bertuccini suggested a much more conservative treatment plan for Mr. Manuel. Should surgery be necessary for Mr. Manuel after additional testing, Dr. Bertuccini recommended a much less invasive procedure than a neck or back fusion.

Based on the above, we find that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Mr. Manuel did not require surgeries in the future to repair the injuries suffered in this accident. Even should future neck or back surgeries be necessary, the jury could have also reasonably concluded that there is only a very small chance that Mr. Manuel will undergo those surgeries based on his mental health history and his reluctance to quit smoking. Additionally, the jury requested Mr. Manuel's life care plan during deliberations, suggesting that they considered future medical expenses for both conservative treatments and surgical procedures and opted to award those expenses for the more conservative treatments.

For these reasons, we find that there was a reasonable factual basis for the jury's conclusions and their awards were not abusively low. We reverse the trial court's judgment granting the JNOV for future medical expenses and reinstate the jury's verdict awarding Mr. Fontenot $31,000.00 and Mr. Manuel $15,000.00 in future medical expenses.

General Damages

Appellants acknowledge in their appeal that the jury created an inconsistency when it awarded past and future medical expenses, evidencing the jury's belief that both Appellees suffered injuries as a result of the December 17, 2020 accident, yet failed to award any general damages for pain and suffering. Appellants further admit that the trial court correctly granted a JNOV in order to correct this inconsistency. Appellants argue, however, that the trial court's awards for past and future pain and suffering—$350,000.00 to Mr. Fontenot and $250,000.00 to Mr. Manuel—are excessive because “they were predicated upon [the trial court's] improperly granted JNOV on future medicals.”

In Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-492, pp. 6-7 (La. 10/17/00), 774 So.2d 70, 75, the supreme court clarified that while it is not legal error to award special damages without general damages, “a jury verdict awarding medical expenses but simultaneously denying damages for pain and suffering will most often be inconsistent in light of the record.” In such a situation, the reviewing court is tasked with determining whether the jury's failure to award general damages “is so inconsistent as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 76.

We find that the trial court correctly granted a JNOV on the issue of general damages, as the evidence showed that both Appellees suffered injuries which presented objective symptoms. See Charles v. Cecil Chatman Plumbing & Heating Co., 96-299 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/23/96), 686 So.2d 43, writ denied, 97-615 (La. 4/25/97), 692 So.2d 1085. The argument presented to this panel on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of general damages to be awarded.

In closing arguments, Mr. Fontenot's attorney suggested that $425,000.00 for his past pain and suffering and $425,000.00 for his future pain and suffering were appropriate awards, for a total of $850,000.00. Mr. Manuel's attorney suggested that $250,000.00 for his past pain and suffering and $500,000.00 for his future pain and suffering were appropriate awards, for a total of $750,000.00. After granting the JNOV, the trial court awarded Mr. Fontenot $350,000.00 for his past and future pain and suffering and awarded Mr. Manuel $250,000.00 for his past and future pain and suffering.

A review of the record supports the conclusion that the impact caused by this accident was severe. Mr. Cortez was traveling 73 mph at the time he rear-ended Mr. Fontenot's truck, which was only traveling approximately 15 miles per hour. There was no indication at the scene of the accident that Mr. Cortez applied his brakes prior to the collision. After impact, Mr. Fontenot's truck was propelled seventy-three feet into the median. Appellees’ doctors all testified that Appellees suffered injuries as a result of this accident, which was corroborated by Appellants’ own doctor. Additionally, both Appellees suffered increased depression and anxiety as a result of the accident and their ensuing injuries, as supported by testimony at trial.

We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the amounts awarded to Appellees for past and future pain and suffering. $350,000.00 and $250,000.00 are relatively conservative numbers considering the amounts requested by Appellees at trial and are supported by the record.

We affirm the trial court's granting of a JNOV on the issue of general damages and affirm its awards of $350,000.00 to Mr. Fontenot and $250,000.00 to Mr. Manuel.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court's granting of a JNOV on the issue of allocation of fault and reinstate the jury's verdict finding Jay O. Cortez to be 50% at fault for the cause of the accident and Joe W. Fontenot to be 50% at fault for the cause of the accident. We reverse the trial court's granting of a JNOV on the issue of future medical expenses and reinstate the jury's verdict awarding Joe W. Fontenot $31,000.00 in future medical expenses and Kevin Dwayne Manuel $15,000.00 in future medical expenses. We affirm the trial court's granting of a JNOV on the issue of general damages and further affirm the amounts awarded to Appellees by the trial court, $350,000.00 to Joe W. Fontenot and $250,000.00 to Kevin Dwayne Manuel. The costs of this appeal are to be shared equally by the parties.

REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The expert in accident reconstruction hired by the plaintiffs, Eric Burson, testified at trial that according to his calculations, Mr. Fontenot would have reached 27.6 miles per hour at the time of impact. He testified that he arrived at this speed using an average acceleration rate from a Society of Automotive Engineers study. On cross-examination, Mr. Burson admitted that he declined to use the speed estimated by Mr. Fontenot in his statement to the officer at the scene of the accident and in deposition testimony—15 miles per hour—because he was “using science.”

2.   Appellants have not appealed the trial court's granting of JNOV as to the awards of past medical expenses. Thus, the trial court's increase of Mr. Fontenot's and Mr. Manuel's past medical expenses is not in dispute and will not be addressed.

3.   Between the ages of eleven and fourteen, Mr. Manuel was seeing a doctor who would give him medication to make him sleepy and then molest Mr. Manuel while he was asleep. The doctor was arrested and convicted for these crimes when Mr. Manuel was eighteen years old.

STILES, Judge.