## Facts

- In August 2005, Donald Alexander alleged he was injured when his vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by Ira Tate.
- Alexander sued Tate and additional defendants connected to Tate and the vehicle, including Tate’s employer, the employer’s insurer, and the vehicle’s owner, seeking damages for personal injuries.
- Alexander claimed neck and back injuries from the 2005 collision, and the evidence included pre-existing degenerative spinal conditions.
- After the 2005 collision, Alexander received significant medical treatment, including multiple steroid injections, and continued to report pain and limitations.
- In March 2008, Alexander was involved in a separate automobile accident.
- Alexander brought a separate claim for the 2008 accident and settled it for $8,000.
- In the 2005-accident trial, the defense argued that Alexander’s symptoms were caused or worsened by the 2008 accident (and/or by pre-existing conditions), creating a dispute about causation and the extent of damages attributable to the 2005 collision.
- Alexander sought to inform the jury of the $8,000 settlement from the 2008 accident to support his position that the later accident did not involve serious injury.
- Over defendants’ objection, the trial court allowed the jury to hear the settlement amount.
- The jury found Alexander 10% at fault and Tate 90% at fault for the 2005 collision and awarded damages, including $192,000 in general damages (before reduction for comparative fault).
- Defendants appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, challenging the admission of the settlement evidence and the general-damages award.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by allowing Alexander to present evidence that he settled his separate 2008-accident claim for $8,000, given Louisiana’s general rule limiting admission of settlement evidence?
2. Did the jury abuse its discretion, or commit manifest error, in its causation findings and its general-damages award (including $192,000 in general damages) in light of Alexander’s pre-existing condition and the later 2008 accident?

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the jury to hear the $8,000 settlement figure from the later accident for the purpose offered in the causation and damages dispute.
- The court also affirmed the jury’s causation-related findings and the amount of general damages, concluding the award fell within the factfinder’s discretion and was supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of offering, accepting, or promising consideration in compromising a claim is generally not admissible to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of a disputed claim. (La. Code Evid. art. 408.)
- Settlement evidence may be admitted when offered for a purpose other than proving liability or the amount of the claim being tried, subject to the trial court’s control of unfair prejudice and jury confusion. (La. Code Evid. arts. 403, 408.)
- Trial courts have broad discretion over evidentiary rulings; appellate review of such rulings is for abuse of discretion.
- Causation and the extent of injury are factual determinations reviewed under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard.
- General damages are reviewed under the “great discretion” standard; an appellate court does not disturb an award absent a clear abuse of discretion.
- A tortfeasor is responsible for harm caused by aggravation of a plaintiff’s pre-existing condition when the evidence supports that the accident contributed to the plaintiff’s condition.

## Conclusion

Alexander v. Tate affirmed a jury verdict arising from a 2005 automobile collision, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in allowing the jury to hear that the plaintiff settled a separate claim from a later 2008 accident for $8,000 to aid the jury’s assessment of causation and the seriousness of the later event, and further holding that the jury’s causation findings and $192,000 general-damages award (as reduced for the plaintiff’s 10% comparative fault) were supported by the record and did not reflect an abuse of discretion.


Alexander v. Tate, 30 So. 3d 1122 (2010)