UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-30903
Summary Calendar
MONA CHANDLER and CLARENCE CHANDLER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana
(96-CV-1109)
July 14, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:*
Mona Chandler appeals the quantum of general damages awarded by the
district court for injuries she suffered as a result of a slip and fall. Her husband
Clarence Chandler appeals the denial of his loss of consortium claim. For the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
reasons assigned, we affirm.
Background
Mona Chandler suffered injuries from a slip and fall at the Sears Retail
Outlet in Lake Charles, Louisiana on March 29, 1995. The accident resulted from
the presence of a clear plastic clothing clip on the walkway of the store. As a result
of the fall, Mona Chandler suffered a tear of the medial meniscus in her left knee
which required surgery and physical therapy.
The instant action was brought against Sears, alleging that the clip presented
an unreasonable risk of harm, and that Sears had either actual or constructive notice
of the condition and Sears failed to exercise reasonable care, occasioning the
injuries. Clarence Chandler asserted a claim for loss of consortium. After a bench
trial, the district court awarded Mona Chandler $36,925.97, representing
$21,925.97 for medical expenses and $15,000 for pain and suffering. Clarence
Chandler’s loss of consortium claim was denied. Both Chandlers timely appealed.
Analysis
The Chandlers contend that the district court erred in determining the
quantum of the pain and suffering award and in denying the loss of consortium
claim. Our review of the briefs and record reflects no reversible error and on the
facts as found, authorities cited, and analysis made by the district court in its
2
Memorandum Ruling signed and filed on July 29, 1997, the judgment appealed is
AFFIRMED.
3