Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bertha Jolivette Zeno v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, D/B/A a & P Food Stores

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided October 24, 1986No. 86-4127Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partEdith Hollan Jones, Circuit Judge

I agree with the majority’s position on the issue of liability. I disagree, however, and therefore dissent from my colleagues’ decision to affirm the quantum of damages assessed by the jury. The jury returned a lump sum award of $95,000.1 Out of this lump sum, it is estimated that $79,193 was allocated to compensate the plaintiff for her general damages — i.e., those damages resulting from her past and future physical and mental pain, and for physical impairment. Given the nature of the injuries sustained by Mrs. Zeno when she fell, a general damages award of more than $79,-000 is clearly…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Peter Joseph Caldarera, Jr., Etc. v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
  2. Dunaway v. Rester Refrigeration Service, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1983
  3. Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1984
  4. Peralta v. Schwegmann Bros. Gt. SupermktsLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1981
  5. Samanie v. BourgLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1983

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API