Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Jones v. Harris Case Brief

Louisiana Court of Appeal2005Docket #1282937
896 So. 2d 237 2005 WL 372508 Torts Evidence Civil Procedure

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A defendant challenged a $1.1 million jury award for a back injury from a car accident as excessive. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under the “much discretion” standard, the award was reasonable given the plaintiff’s two surgeries, permanent impairment, and chronic pain.

Legal Significance: This case exemplifies Louisiana’s “much discretion” standard for reviewing general damage awards, illustrating the high deference appellate courts give to a jury’s assessment of pain and suffering when the award is supported by evidence specific to the plaintiff’s particular injuries and circumstances.

Jones v. Harris Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Plaintiff Jacquelyn Jones was injured when her vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Defendant Renee Harris, who was acting in the course of her employment with the State of Louisiana. Liability was conceded, and the trial focused on causation and damages. Prior to the accident, Jones, age 44, was in good health with no history of back problems. Following the collision, she developed escalating lower back and leg pain. Her treating physicians, based on objective medical tests including X-rays, an EMG, and an MRI, diagnosed a disc problem at the L5-S1 level causally related to the accident. Jones underwent conservative treatment before having two major back surgeries: a microsurgical laminectomy and, later, a posterior lumbar interbody cage fusion. Despite the surgeries, she continued to suffer from chronic pain, was assigned a 15-20% permanent partial disability rating, and was given permanent functional restrictions. The defendants’ medical expert testified that the surgeries were unnecessary and were the actual cause of her disabling condition. The jury credited the plaintiff’s evidence and awarded over $1.1 million in total damages, including $500,000 in general damages.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the jury abuse its ‘much discretion’ by awarding the plaintiff $500,000 in general damages and significant special damages for a back injury that required two surgeries and resulted in permanent impairment?

No. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict, holding that the damage awards Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequ

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Did the jury abuse its ‘much discretion’ by awarding the plaintiff $500,000 in general damages and significant special damages for a back injury that required two surgeries and resulted in permanent impairment?

Conclusion

The case serves as a strong precedent for the principle that a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi

Legal Rule

Under Louisiana law, a general damage award is reviewed for an abuse Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proide

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis centered on the 'much discretion' standard of review for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The court affirmed a >$1.1M verdict for a back injury that
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia d

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

A 'reasonable person' is a legal fiction I'm pretty sure I've never met.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+