The City of Natchitoches has been ordered to pay nearly $300,000 in damages, plus legal interest and court costs, following a lawsuit arising from a January 2024 traffic collision involving a Natchitoches Police Department vehicle.
In written reasons for judgment issued by the 10th Judicial District Court, the City stipulated that it was 100 percent at fault for the accident involving Natchitoches Police Officer Roy Lee and motorist Elaina Sonnier. Because liability was admitted, the only issue remaining for trial was the amount of damages owed to the plaintiff.
The Court ultimately awarded a total judgment of $299,411, consisting of past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, permanent impairment, past medical expenses, and future medical expenses.
According to the Court, Ms. Sonnier sought medical treatment immediately following the collision and later underwent extensive follow-up care. Medical evidence presented at trial included MRI findings showing disc bulging in the lumbar spine, ongoing shoulder and knee complaints, physical therapy treatment, and recommendations for future medical procedures.
What makes this case noteworthy is not that the City was found responsible for the collision. The City had already admitted fault before trial.
Instead, the written reasons suggest the Court believed the defense failed to adequately challenge the plaintiff’s medical evidence.
The Court noted that the plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Paul Fenn, was identified well before trial and that medical information concerning future treatment recommendations had been provided months before trial. Despite that information, the Court stated that defense counsel never deposed the physician, never presented a competing medical expert, and offered no medical testimony contradicting the plaintiff’s claims regarding future medical needs.
The Court further criticized efforts made immediately before trial to exclude portions of the physician’s testimony, noting that the motion was filed on the morning of trial and did not comply with procedural requirements.
Throughout the written opinion, the Court repeatedly emphasized that the defense had sufficient opportunity to investigate the plaintiff’s medical claims but failed to do so.
The result is a judgment that taxpayers may ultimately fund through the City’s insurance coverage, increased insurance costs, legal expenses, and other associated costs.
Cases involving government vehicles are not uncommon. However, this case serves as a reminder that when liability is admitted, the outcome often depends upon how effectively damages are investigated, challenged, and presented at trial.
In this instance, the Court concluded that the plaintiff’s evidence regarding her injuries, future medical needs, and long-term limitations was credible, largely unchallenged, and sufficient to support a judgment approaching $300,000.
The larger question for taxpayers may not be why the City lost liability for the accident. The City had already accepted responsibility.
The larger question may be whether the damages portion of the case was defended as aggressively and thoroughly as circumstances required.