NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana state appeals court has partially reversed a $450,000 damages award, initially granted to a minor student and his parents in litigation brought against their school board – which broke promises it made to not have the minor student continue riding the school bus with his physical abuser.
Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal judges D. Kent Savoie, Guy E. Bradberry, and Wilbur L. Stiles granted in part and denied in part an appeal from the Lafayette Parish School Board, against plaintiffs David Travasos, Jamie Travasos and M.T.
Savoie authored the Court’s opinion in this matter.
“In the spring of 2012, while in the seventh grade, M.T. was sexually molested by D.J.L. on the school bus. This happened on numerous occasions while riding the school bus to L.J. Allemon Middle School, as well as on school property. M.T. repeatedly asked the school bus driver to re-assign his seat on the bus away from D.J.L. This request was refused. When these actions were discovered by M.T.’s parents, David and Jamie Travasos, they were immediately reported to the assistant principal at the middle school. A conference was held with the principal and a Lafayette Police Officer, wherein D.J.L. admitted to his behavior. M.T. and Jamie Travasos were told that D.J.L. had been expelled from the school. M.T. and Jamie agreed to not press charges against D.J.L. due to his expulsions and assurances from the school that he would not be allowed to return to L.J. Allemon Middle School,” Savoie said.
“During the summer of 2012, M.T. and Jamie discovered that D.J.L. was allowed to re-enroll at L.J. Allemon Middle School. After a meeting with the assistant principal, David learned that D.J.L. was scheduled to be in several classes with M.T. in the fall. The assistant principal assured David that D.J.L. would not be allowed to ride the same bus as M.T., and they would not have any classes together. In addition, David made several calls to defendant’s transportation office, and he was assured that M.T. and D.J.L. would not be riding the same bus. After school began, David and Jamie noticed attitude changes in M.T., and his grades began to drop. M.T.’s health and growth began to suffer. In November 2012, D.J.L. was placed in M.T.’s social studies class. In April 2013, David and Jamie found out that D.J.L. had been riding the same school bus with M.T. for the entire school year, despite assurances by the middle school and defendant. As a result, David and Jamie Travasos filed suit, individually and on behalf of M.T., who was a minor at the time, against the Lafayette Parish School Board.”
A bench trial was held on Feb. 5, 2020, wherein the trial court allowed counsel 30 days to file post-trial briefs. In March 2020, the courthouse was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Judgment was signed Oct. 5, 2022, in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant Lafayette Parish School Board, awarding damages in the amount of $450,348.
The Lafayette Parish School Board then appealed, seeking a reduction in the damages award. It had an eight-part process upon which its appeal was predicated:
• The trial court committed legal error by imposing a duty on the School System that is not grounded in statute or jurisprudence;
• The trial court erred in finding that the appellees suffered injury that was causally related to the actions of the School System;
• The trial court failed to allocate fault to the admitted tortfeasor and co-defendant D.J.L., through Stephanie JohnLouis;
• The trial court’s award of $250,000 for general damages for M.T. was excessive and a clear abuse of discretion;
• The trial court’s award of $50,000 for general damages for Jamie Travasos was excessive and a clear abuse of discretion;
• The trial court’s award of $50,000 for general damages for David Travasos was excessive and a clear abuse of discretion;
• The trial court’s award of $26,485 for M.T.’s school tuition was improper and a clear abuse of discretion;
• The trial court erred in failing to allocate fault to the other tortfeasors.
In writing for the Court, Savoie then took each point in turn.
“Based on the jurisprudence and evidence, we do not find that the trial court manifestly erred in finding that defendant breached its duty. This case involves a sexual assault which occurred numerous times while on a school bus. During this time, the evidence shows that the same offender bullied and assaulted other students as well. The offender admitted to the sexual assault while in the presence of a law enforcement officer and the principal of the middle school. Additionally, D.J.L. was allowed to continue at the same school, in the same activities, in the same classes, and on the same school bus with the victim despite numerous assurances to the contrary. This assignment has no merit,” Savoie stated.
Savoie then turned to the alleged error surrounding injury by causal relationship.
“A review of the record shows plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Dania Ramirez, testified that the physical harassment and bullying that M.T. encountered could cause the growth hormone deficiency that he experienced. She further testified that had M.T. been removed from the stressful environment, he probably would not have needed the three years of growth hormone injections. As pointed out by plaintiffs, this medical testimony was unrebutted by defendant. Defendant did not submit a medical expert to testify at trial. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding that the injuries suffered by M.T. was caused by defendant,” Savoie said.
Savoie followed by examining the appeal charges related to allocation of fault.
“Defendant first argues that this lawsuit was filed due to a sexual assault by D.J.L., and as the primary tortfeasor, he should have been allocated fault. Next, defendant contends that M.T.’s parents David and Jamie should be allocated fault because they were negligent in allowing M.T. to play football and basketball with D.J.L.,” Savoie said.
Savoie cited Brammer v. Bossier Parish School Board and Pike v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, where both of those school board organizations were found fully liable in injury cases involving students – and added, “based on the cases cited, we cannot say that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in assessing 100% fault to defendant in this case.”
Finally, Savoie went to the issue of allegedly-excessive damages awarded to M.T., Jamie Travasos and David Travasos, along with further damages for M.T.’s tuition.
“M.T. testified that he felt scared, uneasy, and timid around D.J.L. and like he was ‘walking on eggshells.’ M.T.’s health and growth began to suffer as a result. M.T. was diagnosed with a growth hormone deficiency due to the abuse and continued contact with his abuser for which he had to take three years of hormone injections. David and Jamie testified that they noticed attitude changes in M.T., and his grades began to drop. Based on our review of the record and the jurisprudence, we cannot say that the trial court’s general damages award of $250,000 to M.T. was an abuse of discretion. This assignment has no merit,” Savoie stated.
“Next, defendant complains that the general damages awarded to David and Jamie Travasos were abusively high. They were each awarded $50,000 for loss of consortium. After a review of the record, the Travasoses and the rest of their family were affected by the actions of the school board. The Travasoses placed M.T. in private school in order to move M.T. away from his abuser. The hormone injections were $20,000 per year. The ordeal caused much stress for the family. However, based on the jurisprudence, we find that $50,000 for each parent is an abuse of discretion. We further find that $15,000 awarded to each parent is the highest point which is reasonably within the fact finder’s discretion.”
Finally, the defendant argues that the special damages award of $26,485 for M.T.’s private school tuition was an abuse of discretion.
“Defendant argues that this was not an expense that plaintiffs incurred. Jamie’s father, Nelson, paid 100% of M.T.’s private school tuition. When asked if these payments were a loan to David and Jamie, Nelson responded that it was not. Defendant argues plaintiffs did not incur any loss because they did not pay the tuition, and they are not expected to repay Jamie’s father. The testimony of plaintiffs is that it was a loan and that they were planning on paying it back from the amount awarded in this case,” Savoie said.
“The record shows that plaintiffs did not pay M.T.’s private school tuition – M.T.’s grandfather did. There is conflicting testimony about whether the tuition was expected to be re-paid. Based on the record, we cannot say that plaintiffs proved this item of special damages by a preponderance of the evidence. We find that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in awarding $26,485 for M.T.’s private school tuition.”
Savoie and his colleagues then issued their final decree as to the instant appeal.
“Plaintiffs’ objection to the amended motion and order for devolutive appeal is sustained. The loss of consortium damages awarded to David Travasos is reduced to $15,000. The loss of consortium damages awarded to Jamie Travasos is reduced to $15,000. That part of the judgment awarding private school tuition in the amount of $26,485 is reversed. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $8,819.11 is assessed equally between the parties,” Savoie ordered.
Stiles concurred in part and dissented his part with his colleagues.
Third Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana case 23-640
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Lafayette Parish case C-2013-1995
From the Louisiana Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com