James v. McHenry
| Decision Date | 18 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 36098-CA.,36098-CA. |
| Citation | 828 So.2d 94 |
| Parties | Lynn JAMES, Jr., individually and as natural tutor of the minor children, Destiny James and Justin James, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles E. McHENRY and Illinois National Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Herman A. Castete, for Appellant.
Tracy L. Oakley, Ruston, for Appellee.
Before BROWN, WILLIAMS and PEATROSS. JJ.
The plaintiff, Walter Lynn James, Jr., individually and as tutor of the minor children, Destiny James and Justin James, appeals a judgment in favor of the defendants, Charles McHenry and Illinois National Insurance Company. For the following reasons, we affirm.
On January 5, 2000, an automobile accident occurred shortly before 8:00 a.m. on North Street in Winnfield, Louisiana. Destiny James was driving a 1991 pickup truck to school in the westbound lane with her brothel', Justin James, as a passenger. Charles McHenry was traveling with a passenger, Vickie Sanchez, in a 1977 pickup truck in the eastbound lane. The vehicles collided head on, with each truck sustaining damage to the left front area. In the collision, Destiny James hit her head and injured her arm. Justin James was cut on the head and chin after hitting the windshield. Both were transported by ambulance to the hospital for treatment,
Subsequently, the plaintiff, Walter Lynn James, Jr., individually and as tutor of his minor children. Destiny James and Justin James, filed a petition for damages against the defendants, Charles McHenry and his insurer, Illinois National Insurance Company. Prior to trial, Sanchez died of causes unrelated to the accident.
After a trial. the matter was taken under advisement. The trial court issued written reasons for judgment, finding that the collision occurred in McHenry's lane of travel and that plaintiff failed to prove that McHenry was at fault in causing the accident. The trial court rendered judgment. in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff motion for new trial was denied. The plaintiff appeals the judgment.
The plaintiff contends the trial court erred in finding that McHenry was not at fault in causing the accident. Plaintiff argues that the evidence at trial proved that McHenry's truck had crossed the center line of the street when the accident occurred.
A court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's finding of fact in the absence of manliest error or unless it is clearly wrong. Reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not he disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel its inferences are as reasonable. Lewis v. State DOTD. 94-2370 (La.4/21/95), 654 So.2d 311. The task of a reviewing court is to assess whether the fact finder's resolution of conflicting evidence was reasonable in light of the record as a whole. Fowler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 30,843 (La.App.2d Cir.8/19/98), 716 So.2d 511.
A plaintiff seeking damages must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused his injuries. Proof by a preponderance of evidence means that the fact or cause sought to be proved is more probable than not. Alderman v. Jacks, 31,572 (La.App.2d Cir.2/24/99), 729 So.2d 729.
In the present case, Winnfield Police Lieutenant Lawrence Desadier ("Lt.Desa(lien"), the investigating officer, testified that the road did not have a painted center line and that the visible line where the two sections of pavement joined was not the actual middle of the street. Lt. Desadier testified that he observed tire marks in the road, but, he could not say which vehicle caused the marks. Lt. Desadier stated that Police Officer Bobby Poisso and Assistant Police Chief Russell Jones took measurements at the scene showing that the vehicles' point of impact was located nine feet one inch from the northern edge of the road and eight feet nine inches from the southern edge. Desadier testified that scuff marks and debris in the road indicated that the point of impact occurred in the eastbound lane where McHenry was traveling.
Lt. Desadier recalled that when he arrived at the scene, he spoke to Destiny James, who said that prior to the accident her windows had "fogged up" and she was unable to see the road. According to Desadier, McHenry told him that the other driver had entered his lane of travel and struck his vehicle.
Officer Bobby Poisso testified that when he arrived at the accident scene, he observed tire marks and a lot of debris and he used this information to determine where the point of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aaron v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
...by a preponderance of evidence means that the fact or cause sought to be proved is more probable than not. James v. McHenry , 36,098 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/18/02), 828 So.2d 94, 95.Following the initial trial, the city court rendered judgment in favor of the trial plaintiffs on their negligence......
-
Albert v. Trans Met, Inc.
...Proof by a preponderance of evidence means that the fact or cause sought to be proved is more probable than not. James v. McHenry, 36,098 (La.App.2d Cir.9/18/02), 828 So.2d 94. He must a causal link between the work-related accident and his injury. Rhodes v. Terrebonne Parish Sheriff, 2001-......
-
Foley v. Sportran, City of Shreveport
...Proof by a preponderance of evidence means that the fact or cause sought to be proved is more probable than not. James v. McHenry, 36,098 (La.App.2d Cir.9/18/02), 828 So.2d 94. He must establish a causal link between the work-related accident and his injury. Rhodes v. Terre bonne Parish She......
-
Hyland v. AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY
...plaintiff seeking damages must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused his injuries. James v. McHenry, 36098 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/18/02), 828 So.2d 94, 95. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means that the fact or cause sought to be proved is more probable than......