## Facts

- James Edward McGee allegedly suffered fatal illness after asbestos exposure during employment and died on January 28, 2000.
- His widow and children brought survival and wrongful death actions against multiple defendants, including former employers and manufacturers of asbestos-containing products.
- Plaintiffs sought general damages that included James McGee’s loss of enjoyment of life.
- Before trial, defendants moved in limine to bar plaintiffs from presenting “loss of enjoyment of life” as a separate item of damages and to exclude related evidence.
- The trial court denied the motion, stating it had previously allowed loss of enjoyment of life as a separate category.
- The court of appeal, on supervisory review, reversed and granted the motion in limine, holding that a separate award for loss of enjoyment of life was legally erroneous and that expert testimony on that element was inadmissible.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether loss of enjoyment of life may be treated as a separate element within general damages and separately listed on a verdict form.

## Issues

1. Whether loss of enjoyment of life is recoverable as a separate element of general damages that may be listed as a separate item on a jury verdict form.
2. Whether Louisiana law imposes a categorical rule that a separate loss-of-enjoyment award necessarily constitutes impermissible duplication of general damages.
3. Whether expert testimony addressing loss of enjoyment of life is categorically inadmissible.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the trial court’s denial of the motion in limine.
- The court held that loss of enjoyment of life is recoverable as a separate element of general damages and may be included as a separate item on a jury verdict form.
- The court rejected the view that a separately itemized award for loss of enjoyment of life is erroneous as a matter of law.
- The court also rejected a categorical exclusion of expert testimony on loss of enjoyment of life, leaving admissibility to general evidentiary standards.

## Legal Principles

- General damages compensate nonpecuniary harm, and loss of enjoyment of life is a recognized component of that nonpecuniary injury.
- Loss of enjoyment of life may be itemized separately on a verdict form as an element within general damages without creating an automatic double recovery.
- Whether a particular award duplicates other general-damage components is a case-specific question, not a per se legal bar.
- Expert testimony on loss of enjoyment of life is not categorically prohibited; admissibility depends on ordinary rules governing relevance and reliability.

## Conclusion

Loss of enjoyment of life is a compensable element within Louisiana general damages and may be separately listed on a jury verdict form; courts may not bar such claims or related expert evidence through a blanket legal prohibition.


McGee v. A C & S, Inc., 933 So. 2d 770 (La. 2006)