Virgil v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co.

Decision Date29 May 1987
Docket NumberNo. 87-C-0810,87-C-0810
CitationVirgil v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., 507 So.2d 825 (La. 1987)
PartiesLarry Joe VIRGIL v. AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Edmond R. Eberle, New Orleans, for applicant.

Thomas L. Gaudry, Jr., Windhorst, Pastorek & Gaudry, Harvey, for respondent.

Prior Report: 503 So.2d 45.

PER CURIAM.

Granted.The court of appeal erred in holding that the manifest error standard of appellate review does not apply when the evidence before the trier of fact consists solely of written reports, records and depositions.The court further erred in assessing credibility and weighing medical evidence as if the court of appeal were the trier of fact.

The manifest error standard and its purpose were stated succinctly in Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716(La.1973), as follows:

"When there is evidence before the trier of fact which, upon its reasonable evaluation of credibility, furnishes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's finding, on review the appellate court should not disturb this factual finding in the absence of manifest error.Stated another way, the reviewing court must give great weight to factual conclusions of the trier of fact; where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.The reason for this well-settled principle of review is based not only upon the trial court's better capacity to evaluate live witnesses (as compared with the appellate court's access only to a cold record), but also upon the proper allocation of trial and appellate functions between the respective courts."(emphasis supplied)

Louisiana's...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
295 cases
  • First Nat. Bank of Jefferson Parish v. Rall
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • Octubre 15, 1992
    ...credibility of this testimony and it was reasonable for him to conclude that the Sheriff's Deputy followed proper procedures in making the service. In the absence of manifest error we defer to the trier of fact. Virgil v. American Guaranty and Liability Ins. Co., 507 So.2d 825 (La.1987). The trial judge also had the benefit of the testimony of the 11-year-old boy upon whom service was made. The boy appeared to understand the matter at hand and he appeared to be a good student and possessof responsibility. He was reasonable in determining that the boy was of suitable age and discretion to accept service on behalf of Mr. Rall. In the absence of manifest error, we again defer to the trial judge. Virgil v. American Guaranty and Liability Ins. Co., supra. Without citing any authority, Mr. Rall complains that the service is defective because the Sheriff's Deputy did not write up the details in his written return explaining that the boy was a minor and describing what steps...
  • Libasci v. Longo
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • Febrero 13, 1992
    ...percent of wages during the period of such disability. In reviewing a worker's compensation case, an appellate court must give great weight to the factual findings of the trial court as to disability. Virgil v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance, 507 So.2d 825 (La.1987); Dehart v. Betty Breaux Personnel, Inc., 535 So.2d 456 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988). Reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact by the trial court, if supported by the record evidence,Inc., 535 So.2d 456 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988). Reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact by the trial court, if supported by the record evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal unless the findings are clearly wrong. Virgil, supra; Harris v. Rumold, 518 So.2d 9 (La.App. 4th Plaintiff was injured on February 25, 1987, when a forty-foot ladder leaning against a building fell and struck him in the head. He claims that he was knocked unconscious for...
  • Kirt v. Oaklawn Sugar Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • Diciembre 19, 1989
    ...plaintiff is not entitled to workers compensation benefits. ANALYSIS The manifest error standard applies in worker's compensation cases even if evidence consists solely of written reports and depositions. Virgil v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, 507 So.2d 825 (La.1987). The trial court found that the plaintiff was injured at work and that it "caused some problems" but found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the accident caused his problems. We find this to...
  • Bibbins v. City of New Orleans
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • Mayo 21, 2003
    ...wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). Where there is a conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review. Virgil v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 507 So.2d 825 (La.1987). The issue to be resolved by a reviewing court is not whether the trier of fact was right or wrong, but whether the factfinder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,...
  • Get Started for Free