What do the movie, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” and final judgments have in common? Both require a “golden ticket” to succeed in the next phase. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, each contestant must have a golden ticket to gain access to Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory. In trial-level court cases, judgments must include clear, specific language that makes them valid and disputable. Although the chances of Charlie discovering one of the five golden tickets were rare, the chances of an appeal being heard are less likely without a valid, disputable judgment.
What language is required to make a judgment valid and disputable? How does a court correct a judgment that does not include clear and specific language? A recent case out of Lafayette addressed these questions and offered preventative measures to avoid future occurrences of the same dilemma.
Curley Mouton lost his life in an automobile accident on April 24, 2014, after a tire on a tractor-trailer failed and burst, causing debris to fly into the roadway. Mouton’s surviving spouse and oldest son filed lawsuits against the truck driver, Arthur Huguley, Huguley’s employer, AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc. (ACT), and the insurance company, Ace American Insurance Company (ACE). After a jury trial, a decision favoring Mouton’s spouse and son was made. The jury found Huguley and ACT responsible for the accident, with 10% of the responsibility allocated to Huguley and the remaining 90% allocated to ACT. The jury awarded the Mouton family damages for the survival action and wrongful death damages.