## Facts

- Randall Gunn, Sr., a self-employed welder, was involved in a minor traffic accident on April 1, 1998, when his vehicle lightly hit a vehicle driven by James M. Robertson.
- Evidence at trial placed both vehicles at about 10 miles per hour at impact; the collision caused relatively limited vehicle damage.
- About a week after the accident, Gunn sought medical evaluation and was diagnosed with a chronic/pre-existing spinal defect (described in the record as spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis) that may have been triggered or made symptomatic by the accident.
- Gunn claimed the accident caused back pain and disability and ultimately required spinal surgery, resulting in medical expenses, lost wages, and reduced earning capacity.
- Gunn and his wife, Tammy (also referenced as Lisa) Gunn, sued Robertson and Robertson’s insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, seeking general damages, past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and loss of earning capacity.
- Tammy and the Gunn children asserted loss-of-consortium claims.
- At trial, plaintiffs introduced evidence of approximately $13,942.19 in past medical expenses and estimated future surgical-related costs of about $59,915.
- Defendants disputed causation and the extent of damages, relying on medical and biomechanical testimony that the low-speed forces were insufficient to cause the claimed spinal condition and surgery.
- Before trial, plaintiffs moved to exclude defense biomechanical/cause testimony (Dr. Alfred P. Bowles II) and to strike a portion of Dr. Kenneth Adatto’s deposition; the trial court denied both requests.
- Defendants served a written offer of judgment for $35,000 under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970, which plaintiffs did not accept.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s allocation of comparative fault (70% Robertson / 30% Gunn) was manifestly erroneous.
2. Whether the jury abused its discretion by awarding only $1,000 for pain and suffering, $1,700 for past medical expenses, and $5,400 for lost wages despite evidence of higher claimed medical bills and alleged need for surgery.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Dr. Bowles’s biomechanical/causation testimony and by refusing to strike portions of Dr. Adatto’s deposition.
4. Whether the trial court properly taxed costs under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970 after plaintiffs failed to obtain a judgment more favorable than the unaccepted $35,000 offer of judgment.
5. Whether the jury was manifestly erroneous in awarding no damages on the loss-of-consortium claims.

## Decision

- The court of appeal affirmed the jury’s comparative-fault allocation of 70% fault to Robertson and 30% to Gunn.
- The court of appeal affirmed the jury’s damage awards ($1,000 general damages, $1,700 past medical expenses, and $5,400 lost wages), finding no abuse of discretion in light of conflicting causation evidence and the jury’s ability to accept only part of plaintiffs’ claimed losses.
- The court of appeal affirmed the judgment rejecting the loss-of-consortium claims.
- The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s evidentiary rulings admitting Dr. Bowles’s testimony and declining to strike the challenged deposition portion.
- The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s taxation of costs against plaintiffs under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970 based on the unaccepted $35,000 offer of judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Comparative-fault allocations are factual determinations reviewed under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard; an appellate court will not reweigh evidence where the record supports the factfinder’s choice between competing accounts.
- Causation and the extent of injury, including whether a minor collision caused or merely coincided with symptoms from a pre-existing condition, are questions for the factfinder when medical evidence conflicts.
- Damage awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion; the factfinder may award only those medical expenses and wage losses it finds were caused by the accident, even if a plaintiff submits higher totals.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over the admission of opinion testimony; challenges to the reliability or basis of an opponent’s methodology generally go to weight for the factfinder unless the ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion.
- Under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970, when a party rejects a qualifying offer of judgment and later obtains a less favorable result, the court may tax specified post-offer costs against that party.

## Conclusion

In Gunn v. Robertson, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit upheld a jury’s 70/30 comparative-fault split and modest damages after a low-speed collision where the parties sharply disputed whether the crash caused a serious spinal condition and surgery or whether most complaints flowed from a chronic defect; the court also affirmed the trial court’s decisions allowing defense causation testimony, refusing to strike deposition testimony, denying consortium awards, and taxing costs under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 970 following plaintiffs’ rejection of a $35,000 offer of judgment.


Gunn v. Robertson, 801 So. 2d 555 (2001)