Abercrombie v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Abercrombie v. Maryland Casualty Co.

212 So. 2d 554, 1968 La. App. LEXIS 4585

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 2, 1968

DocketNo. 2400

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 So. 2d 554 (Abercrombie v. Maryland Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abercrombie v. Maryland Casualty Co., 212 So. 2d 554, 1968 La. App. LEXIS 4585 (La. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

TATE, Judge.

The plaintiff Abercrombie appeals from dismissal of his tort suit after trial on the merits. The chief issue in this court is whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of the factual evidence.

The plaintiff Abercrombie’s Falcon automobile was struck by a pick-up truck owned and operated by Lindsey, the defendant Maryland’s assured. The plaintiff contends that negligence on the part of Lindsey in speed or lookout was a contributory cause of this accident.

The trial court found that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of a third person, Howell; that the latter pulled out from the curb suddenly in Lindsey’s immediate path, at a time when Lindsey could not avoid striking him nor careening into the plaintiff Abercrom-bies’s path. The court found that no excessive speed nor lack of lookout on the part of Lindsey was proven. Since the plaintiff Abercrombie had sued only Maryland, Lindsey’s casualty insurer, the trial court dismissed the suit.

The plaintiff-appellant’s counsel contends somewhat skillfully that issues of law in evaluating evidence are involved, and that the trial court misconstrued the preponderance of the evidence.

[555]*555Nevertheless, we are unable to find , error in the trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of the defendant’s two witnesses' (Lindsey and Bice) as proving the version of the accident found by it, and in its discounting the testimony of the plaintiffs three witnesses (Abercrombie, Howell, and Payne) insofar as contrary thereto. We therefore affirm, applying the well-settled principle that upon appellate review the trial court’s factual appreciation of the evidence will not be disturbed save for manifest error — especially when, as here, founded upon credibility evaluations of the respective witnesses. Costs are to be paid by the plaintiff-appellant. ,,

Affirmed.

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TATE, Judge.

The plaintiff Abercrombie appeals from dismissal of his tort suit after trial on the merits. The chief issue in this court is whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of the factual evidence.

The plaintiff Abercrombie’s Falcon automobile was struck by a pick-up truck owned and operated by Lindsey, the defendant Maryland’s assured. The plaintiff contends that negligence on the part of Lindsey in speed or lookout was a contributory cause of this accident.

The trial court found that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of a third person, Howell; that the latter pulled out from the curb suddenly in Lindsey’s immediate path, at a time when Lindsey could not avoid striking him nor careening into the plaintiff Abercrom-bies’s path. The court found that no excessive speed nor lack of lookout on the part of Lindsey was proven. Since the plaintiff Abercrombie had sued only Maryland, Lindsey’s casualty insurer, the trial court dismissed the suit.

The plaintiff-appellant’s counsel contends somewhat skillfully that issues of law in evaluating evidence are involved, and that the trial court misconstrued the preponderance of the evidence.

[555]*555Nevertheless, we are unable to find , error in the trial court’s evaluation of the testimony of the defendant’s two witnesses' (Lindsey and Bice) as proving the version of the accident found by it, and in its discounting the testimony of the plaintiffs three witnesses (Abercrombie, Howell, and Payne) insofar as contrary thereto. We therefore affirm, applying the well-settled principle that upon appellate review the trial court’s factual appreciation of the evidence will not be disturbed save for manifest error — especially when, as here, founded upon credibility evaluations of the respective witnesses. Costs are to be paid by the plaintiff-appellant. ,,

Affirmed.

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 So. 2d 554, 1968 La. App. LEXIS 4585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abercrombie-v-maryland-casualty-co-lactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack