Writ application granted in part. See per curiam.
Writ granted in part. The trial court erred in granting plaintiffs judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) and awarding an additional $250,000.00 in past non-economic damages and $100,000.00 in loss of enjoyment of life. As a “general proposition,” a disparity between a jurys award of special and general damages “may be illogical or inconsistent.” See Wainwright v. Fontenot, 00-0492, p. 8 (La. 10/17/00), 774 So.2d 70, 76 (emphasis added). However, “a jury, in the exercise of its discretion as factfinder, can reasonably reach the conclusion that a plaintiff has proven his entitlements to recovery of certain medical costs, yet failed to prove that he endured compensable pain and suffering as a result of defendants fault.” Id.; Joseph v. Broussard Rice Mill, Inc., 00-0628, p. 5 (La. 10/30/00), 772 So.2d 94, 99 (the rigorous JNOV standard is based on the principle that when there is a jury, the jury is the trier of fact). We find the facts and inferences are not so overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiff that a reasonable jury could not have awarded $50,000.00 in past non-economic damages. See Joseph, 00-0628, pp. 4-5, 772 So.2d at 99. Accordingly, the lower courts are reversed in part and the jurys award of $50,000.00 in past non-economic damages is reinstated. In all other respects, the writ is denied.
REVERSED IN PART; JURY AWARD REINSTATED
Hughes, J., dissents.
Crichton, J., would grant and docket.