## Facts

- A kindergarten student, Justin Spears, attended physical education class indoors due to rain, supervised by two physical-education teachers.
- After Justin and two classmates were disruptive and played with the supervising coach’s hair and ears, the coach threatened to “kill” them.
- The coach later stated he would kill the boys by tying a jump rope around their necks and pushing them off a chair.
- The coach staged a prank by placing a jump rope loosely around the necks of two boys, positioning them as if dead, and telling Justin he had killed them; Justin cried upon seeing them lying motionless.
- After the incident, Justin developed significant emotional and behavioral symptoms, including anxiety, developmental regression, fear of being alone, separation anxiety, and social withdrawal.
- Expert testimony attributed Justin’s symptoms to trauma consistent with, or diagnosed as, post-traumatic stress disorder and indicated a need for continuing therapy.
- Justin’s parents obtained professional treatment, incurred past expenses, and presented evidence of future treatment needs.
- The parents also claimed the incident disrupted family life and their relationship with Justin, supporting loss-of-consortium damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding the nature, severity, and causation of Justin’s psychological injuries.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $100,000 in general damages to Justin and $5,000 to each parent for loss of consortium.
3. Whether damages should have been reduced for failure to mitigate because the parents allegedly did not act reasonably to lessen Justin’s harm.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment in full.
- The trial court’s findings on Justin’s psychological injury and causation were not manifestly erroneous.
- The general damages and loss-of-consortium awards were within the trial court’s discretion and were not excessive under the abuse-of-discretion standard.
- The trial court properly rejected the mitigation defense because the parents acted reasonably in seeking and pursuing treatment.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court will not disturb factual findings, including credibility determinations and the weight given to expert testimony, absent manifest error (clear wrongness).
- General damage awards and consortium awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal is warranted only when the award falls outside the range of the trier of fact’s “much discretion.”
- Severe emotional and psychological injury to a child, supported by lay and expert evidence and likely to persist, can justify substantial general damages even without significant physical injury.
- Parental loss-of-consortium damages may compensate for disruption of the parent-child relationship and family life caused by the child’s injury.
- A plaintiff’s duty to mitigate requires reasonable efforts, not perfect measures; the defendant bears the burden to show that additional mitigation would have materially reduced the harm.

## Conclusion

The court upheld substantial general damages for a young child’s trauma-induced psychological injury and modest parental consortium awards, holding that the trial court’s findings were supported by the record, the quantum fell within its discretion, and the parents reasonably mitigated by promptly obtaining professional treatment.


Spears v. Jefferson Par. Sch. Bd., 646 So. 2d 1104 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994)