125 So. 3d 1268 - Smith v. Guidroz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well-settled that vast discretion is accorded to the trier of fact in fixing general damage awards. La.Civ.Code art. 2324.1; Howard v. Union Carbide Corp., 09-2750 (La.10/19/10), 50 So.3d 1251 . This vast discretion is such that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages. Thus, the role of the appellate court in reviewing general damage awards is not to decide what it considers to | inbe an appropriate award, but rather to review the exercise of discretion by the trier of fact. Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994). “An appellate court may not overturn an award for damages unless it is so out of proportion to the injury complained of that it shocks the conscience.” Harrington v. Wilson, 08-544, p. 16 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/13/09), 8 So.3d 30, 40 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Courville v. Allstate Insurance Co. · 160 So. 3d 1113 - Parker v. Town of Woodworth

2. “Generally, excessive force claims fall under the duty/risk analysis for negligence claims. Stroik v. Ponseti, 96-2897 (La.9/9/97), 699 So.2d 1072 . Under that standard, the plaintiff must prove, “(1) the conduct in |inquestion was the cause-in-fact of the resulting harm; (2) [the] defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff; (3) the requisite duty was breached by the defendant; [and] (4) the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached.” . Id. at 1077 . In determining whether there was a breach of duty, the court should apply the factors enumerated in Kyle v. City of New City of New Orleans, 353 So.2d 969 (La.1977). In Kyle, 353 So.2d 969 , the supreme court specifically addressed analysis of excessive force claims, stating: The use of force when necessary to make an arrest is a legitimate police function. But if the officers- use un reasonable or excessive force, they and their employer are liable for any injuries which result. Whether the force used is reasonable depends on the totality of the facts and circumstances in each case. A court must evaluate the officers’ actions against those of ordinary, prudent and reasonable men placed in the same position as the officers and with the same knowledge as the officers. The degree of force is a factual issue. As such, the trial court’s finding is entitled to great weight. Several factors to be considered in making this determination are the known character of the arrestee, the risks and dangers fac”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 149 So. 3d 387 - Floyd v. City of Carencro