NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2022 CA 0451
COURTNEY D. GRAY AND SHANA M. GRAY
VERSUS
UV LOGISTICS, LLC, D/ B/ A UNITED VISION LOGISTICS, ALBERT KNIGHT, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND/ OR D/ B/ A AK TRUCKING, LLC, DIAMOND TANK RENTALS, INC, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, DEF INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GHI INSURANCE COMPANY
Judgment Rendered. NOV 17 2022
Appealed from the 16th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of St. Mary State of Louisiana Case No. 128,324, Division C
The Honorable Vincent J. Borne, Judge Presiding
Arthur D. Dupre Counsel for Plaintiffs/ Appellants Jacob P. Van Wynen Courtney D. Gray and Metairie, Louisiana Shana M. Gray
Frederic C. Fondren Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees Charles G. Blaize, Jr. UV Logistics, LLC, d/ b/ a United Houma, Louisiana Vision Logistics, Albert Knight, Sr., and AK Trucking, LLC
BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND RESTER, JJ. THERIOT, J.
In this suit arising out of injuries sustained in an incident involving a tractor
trailer winch, plaintiffs -appellants, Courtney D. Gray (" Gray") and Shana M. Gray
collectively " the Grays"), appeal the trial court' s July 29, 2021 judgment, finding
Gray was 70% at fault for failure to properly report maintenance issues with the
trailer and in causing the accident and resulting injuries; finding defendant -
appellee, Albert Knight d/ b/ a AK Trucking (" Knight"), was 30% at fault for failing
to maintain his trailers when previously informed there was an issue with the trailer
and its appurtenances; and further finding defendant -appellee, UV Logistics, LLC
d/ b/ a United Vision Logistics (" UVL"), was vicariously liable for the actions of
Knight. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Gray undisputedly worked as a truck driver for Knight. An Independent
Contractor Operating Agreement exists between Knight, as contractor, and UVL,
as carrier, whereby Knight provided UVL the use of certain equipment, including
tractors and trailers, along with one or more professional truck drivers and other
incidental transportation -related services.
On April 6, 2014, Gray was using a winch bar to tighten a load on a trailer,
which was being used to haul cutting boxes secured by straps. Gay inserted the
winch bar into the winch and was pushing down on the winch bar. Toward the end
of tensioning the strap, Gray placed two hands on the winch bar and pushed down
in his last attempt to get it tighter. However, the winch allegedly spun and broke,
and the winch bar came up, striking him on the right side of his forehead.
On April 6, 2015, the Grays filed a Petition for Damages, naming UVL,
Albert Knight, Sr., individually and/ or d/ b/ a AK Trucking, LLC, and various
2 insurers as defendants) The Grays asserted defendants' negligence caused Gray' s
injuries and damages.
Trial on the merits was held on June 28- 30, 2021. Ina judgment signed July
29, 2021, the trial court found Gray was " seventy ( 70%) percent at fault for failure
to properly report maintenance issues with the trailer and in causing the accident
and resulting injuries." The trial court found Knight was " thirty (30%) percent at
fault in failing to maintain his trailers when previously informed that there was an
issue with the trailer and its appurtenances" and further found UVL was
vicariously liable for the actions of Albert Knight d/ b/ a AK Trucking, LLC, under
the trucking agreements between the parties." In the judgment, the trial court made
various damage awards to the Grays and noted that said amounts were " to be
reduced by seventy ( 70%) percent for the fault of Courtney Gray."
In written reasons for judgment, the trial court noted Gray testified that,
when he was winching, he had two hands on the bar and his head was over the bar;
thus, the trial court found Gray failed to follow the proper winching procedure
contributing to the cause of his injuries. Additionally, the trial court found Gray
failed to follow the rules on reporting maintenance issues for Department of
Transportation (" DOT"), as well as UVL. The trial court further noted Gray' s
failure to report to his treating physician two accidents, which occurred while he
was recovering from neck surgery and exacerbated his injuries, protracted Gray' s
recovery from the instant injury. The trial court further noted Gray failed to
complete physical therapy and continues to take narcotic pain medication seven
years post -accident, contributing to his failure to obtain gainful employment.
Referencing the findings of Dr. Christopher Cenac, the trial court noted Gray
The Grays also named Diamond Tank Rentals, Inc. (" Diamond") as a defendant, as Gray allegedly was picking up the load of cutting boxes from Diamond on the date of the incident. Diamond filled an unopposed motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted on February 23, 2016. should have had a psychological assessment prior to the surgery to discern if he
would be a successful candidate for the surgery, which has led to Gray having an
opioid addiction. Thus, the trial court outlined in its written reasons that Gray was
seventy ( 70%) percent at fault in causing the accident and resulting injuries for
failure to follow proper safety rules for winching, follow DOT regulations and
mitigating [ sic] his damages," Knight was 30% at fault in failing to maintain his
trailers, and UVL was vicariously liable with Knight.
On August 9, 2021, the Grays filed a motion for new trial, asking that the
trial court reduce Gray' s allocation of fault. On August lb, 2021, UVL and Knight
likewise filed a motion for new trial. On November 29, 2021, the trial court signed
a judgment, denying both motions for new trial.
The Grays appeal the trial court' s July 29, 2021 judgment. In their first and
second assignments of error, taken together, the Grays assert the trial court was
manifestly erroneous and erred in allocating 70% of fault to Gray because there is
no factual basis in the trial record for such an allocation and the trial court record
clearly establishes that such an allocation of fault is manifestly erroneous.
DISCUSSION
The Grays argue the trial court misconstrued Gray' s testimony as to the
placement of his head at the time of the incident, no OSHA standard or regulation
prohibited the use of both hands on the winch bar, and Gray was unaware of any
winch problems to report before the incident. The Grays further argue the trial
court was manifestly erroneous in concluding he failed to mitigate his damages.
Preliminarily, we note that, although the trial court' s written reasons stated
Gray was 70% at fault " in causing the accident and resulting injuries for failure to
follow proper safety rules for winching, follow DOT regulations and mitigating
sic] his damages," the July 29, 2021 judgment from which the Grays appeal does
not include a finding that Gray failed to mitigate his damages. Moreover, neither
4 the reasons nor the judgment state how much ( if any) the various damage awards
were reduced for failure to mitigate damages, and none of the parties have
appealed, asking this court to reduce damages for failure to mitigate. Where there
is a discrepancy between the judgment and the reasons for judgment, the judgment
prevails. Scoggins v. Frederick, 98- 1814, p. 3 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9124199), 744
So. 2d 676, 680, n. 4, writ denied, 1999- 3557 ( La. 3117100), 756 So. 2d 1141.
Accordingly, as the appealed judgment does not reflect either a finding that Gray
failed to mitigate his damages or a reduction of damages therefor, we find the
judgment prevails, and the issue of failure to mitigate damages is not before this
court.
As to Gray' s comparative fault, La. Civ. Code art. 2323( A) states:
In any action for damages where a person suffers injury, death, or loss, the degree or percentage of fault of all persons causing or contributing to the injury, death, or loss shall be determined, regardless of whether the person is a party to the action or a nonparty, and regardless of the person' s insolvency, ability to pay, immunity by statute, including but not limited to the provisions of R.S. 23: 1032, or that the other person' s identity is not known or reasonably ascertainable. If a person suffers injury, death, or loss as the result
partly of his own negligence and partly as a result of the fault of another person or persons, the amount of damages recoverable shall be reduced in proportion to the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the person suffering the injury, death, or loss.
The allocation of fault between comparatively negligent parties is a finding
of fact. Sims v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 98- 1613, p. 2 ( La.
312199), 731 So. 2d 197, 199. The supreme court in Watson v. State Farm Fire
and Casualty Insurance Co., 469 So. 2d 967, 974 ( La. 1985) set forth guidelines
for apportioning fault under the doctrine of comparative negligence, as follows:
In determining the percentages of fault, the trier of fact shall consider both the nature of the conduct of each party at fault and the extent of the causal relation between the conduct and the damages claimed.
In assessing the nature of the conduct of the parties, various factors may influence the degree of fault assigned, including: ( 1) whether the conduct resulted from inadvertence or involved an awareness of the danger, ( 2) how great a risk was created by the conduct, ( 3) the
5 significance of what was sought by the conduct, ( 4) the capacities of the actor, whether superior or inferior, and ( 5) any extenuating circumstances which might require the actor to proceed in haste, without proper thought. And, of course, as evidenced by concepts such as last clear chance, the relationship between the fault/negligent conduct and the harm to the plaintiff are considerations in determining the relative fault of the parties.
Like all factual findings, the standard of review of comparative fault
allocations is that of manifest error. Leonard v. Ryan' s Family Steak Houses,
Inc., 2005- 0775, p. 13 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 21/ 06), 939 So. 2d 401, 410. The
supreme court has announced a two- part test for the reversal of a factfinder' s
determinations: ( 1) the appellate court must find from the record that a reasonable
factual basis does not exist for the finding of the trial court; and ( 2) the appellate
court must further determine that the record establishes that the finding is clearly
wrong ( manifestly erroneous). See Stobart v. State through Department of
Transportation and Development, 617 So. 2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993).
The manifest error standard demands great deference to the fact finder' s
conclusions; for only the fact finder can be aware of the variations in demeanor
and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener' s understanding and belief in
what is said. Schexnayder v. Bridges, 2015- 0786, p. 13 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
2126116), 190 So. 3d 764, 773. Where two permissible views of the evidence exist,
the fact finder' s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly
wrong. Id. If an appellate court finds a clearly wrong allocation of fault, the court
should adjust the award, but then only to the extent of lowering or raising it to the
highest or lowest point respectively that is reasonably within the fact finder' s
discretion. Id. at 773- 74.
Trial testimony reflects that, on April 6, 2014, Gray inserted the winch bar
into the winch and was pushing down on the winch bar. Gray testified that he
placed his hand on the trailer to make sure he was balanced and then he came
down with the bar a couple of times. He said he then placed both hands on the bar
6 and was pushing down to get it " extra tight." Bob Tindell (" Tindell"), another
driver who witnessed the incident, testified that Gray' s back was straight, and he
was pushing down with his arms, using a little body weight and his knees for
leverage. Tindell noted Gray was pushing for the last few clicks, which is the end
of tightening a strap when extra tension is needed. However, the winch bar came
back up striking Gray on the right side of his forehead. Gray testified he was
wearing a hard hat, which was knocked off.
Gray attended orientation with UVL twice, on July 19, 2011 and February 5,
2014. Glenn Gary (" Glenn"), a UVL trainer and safety manager, testified at trial
that, in his training class, drivers are taught to face the trailer with the winch bar
off to the right, if they are right-handed.' They are told to then stabilize themselves
on the trailer by grabbing the rub rail and properly tension the bar with the other
hand. Glenn testified "[ t]he driver is responsible for their own safety by their
actions."
A PowerPoint presentation used in UVL' s driver training on load
securement outlined the following: " Use proper body positioning. Keep both feet
firmly planted on the ground and push with your arms and back. Do not put all
your weight over the bar?" Glenn testified the use of the plural word " arms" was a
misspelling, and they " never train for two arms on the bar." Glenn testified the
PowerPoint refers to both the left and right arm ( i.e., whatever arm is used
depending on whether one is left or right-handed) and does not reference two arms
or two hands on the bar at the same time. Glenn agreed the instruction
contemplates a person' s arm and shoulder would be over the bar when the winch
bar is properly being used to produce whatever tension or pressure is needed.
Gray is right-handed.
7 Glenn agreed there can be stylistic variations "[ als long as you follow the
body positioning ... referred to earlier." As to placing a second hand on the bar
toward the end of tightening the strap, Glenn stated the biggest problem with that is
a driver has no way to stabilize himself if something fails. Glenn noted the reason
they tell the driver to place one hand on the trailer is to stabilize themselves if the
bar gives way or the winch gives way or the strap fails and to prevent the driver
from " slamming against the side of the trailer and busting a head." When asked if
it was acceptable procedure and proper for a driver, when tensioning a load, to take
his hand off the trailer for the last two clicks if he stabilizes himself in a sturdy
stance and uses two hands to put the last bit of pressure on the bar, Glenn
responded, " No. ... we don' t train that way." As to body positioning while
winching, Glenn further testified:
Q: And so if you' re standing there like what you demonstrated before, your arm and your shoulder are over the winch?
A: Yes, they were. Q: But your body is not, is it, the rest of your body? A: No. Q: Your face isn' t? A: No. Q: Your torso? A: I' m looking straight at the winch and watching the winch. Q: So if you' re facing forward, than that winch is on the side of your body and you' re pushing it down with your arm, if that winch for whatever reason pops up, where does it go? A: There are — if it break, it goes down. Q: To the ground or right here ( indicating)? A: Uh-huh. Q: Not here ( indicating), right?
A: It shouldn' t.
Q: Is that why you teach that? A: Yes, because there have been injuries where the drivers have
improperly used bars in the past. I' ve seen some pretty nasty injuries in that. So we' ve had to hammer down on keep your body and face away from the winch bar. Keep the winch bar off to your right. Most of these guys are right handed and even left handers, most of them will do it with the right hand so they can control and keep an eye on the gear on the left -hand side.
8 In his trial testimony, Stanley Burney (" Burney"), a former contract driver
for UVL who collected Gray' s load after the incident, likewise agreed drivers are
instructed on the proper way to bind down a load and are told not to have their
head or face anywhere near the bar. When asked if he had used two hands to crank
down on the bar, Burney stated he had done so. However, when asked whether the
bar flies up when it breaks, and hits a driver upside the head, Burney responded,
Sometimes if you ain' t careful if you ain' t doing it right."
Additionally, when asked what would happen in the event of a failure within
a winch ( e. g., the pawl fails), Glenn testified that the bar will only come back up if
the person tensioning the bar actually dropped the bar or let go of it; otherwise, it
would remain in the palm of their hand. He maintained the only way the bar is
going to come back up is if the driver releases the tension on the bar; thus, he trains
drivers to have the presence of mind to always hold onto the bar. When asked
whether a driver is expected to hold onto the bar with a sudden surprise of an
upward surge of energy, Glenn explained there is no more energy coming back up
with the bar than the driver is applying directly to it, so it does not surge, create, or
increase energy and further does not increase in the amount of pressure, tension, or
surge. Glenn testified they train the drivers to never let go of the bar until they
know the pawl has been engaged. When asked whether the tension on the strap
would come flying up if the pawl did not catch the gear when a driver cranks down
on the last few clicks, Glenn maintained it was never going to have more pressure
than the driver actually applied himself and does not generate pressure. Glenn
testified that if a driver is surprised, then that means they are not staying focused
on the pressure that is on the bar that they are applying. Glenn agreed a driver
should never be surprised by the amount of tension that is being put on a winch or
strap, as they are putting the pressure on the winch themselves. Per Glenn, the
driver is responsible for their own safety by their actions."
9 In his trial testimony, Gray agreed he was taught to place his left hand on the
truck and use his right hand and shoulder to push down the bar, and Gray further
agreed he was taught to keep his head "[ a] way from the bar." As to the position of
his head at the time of the incident, Gray testified:
Q: What part of your body did the winch bar hit? A: It hit my head. Q: Was your head over the bar? A. My right —the right side of my head. No, sir, my head wasn' t over the bar.
When asked if any part of Gray' s body, including his head, was over the winch
bar, Tindell responded, " No, sir. No, sir." Nevertheless, in his deposition
introduced into evidence at trial, Charles Prewitt, P. E., the Grays' consulting
engineer, testified:
Q: And so if you' re not leaning your face and head over the bar and something happens to make the bar pop up, what happens? A: Well, I don' t know that he had his head and face over the bar. He had it obviously close enough that it hit him.
Q: You have to be too close to the bar for it to hit you in the forehead, don' t you?
A: You would have to be close enough to it to hit, yeah. That' s obvious.
Q: And the point is to not be so close to it so that it hits you in the head to operate the bar safely; is that correct? A: Well, that' s the idea, yes. Q: So if you consider getting too close to it user error, that' s a
possibility in this case; isn' t it? A: If — yeah, that' s certainly a possibility. I would — N ( ods head). MR. VAN WYNEN:
Are you saying in the event of a failure or just normal operation?
MR. FONDREN:
Either way. BY MR. FONDREN:
Q: Either way. A: Like I said, I think it' s — it' s --- yeah, that' s true. He would have had to have been about the bar for it to hit him. Unless he pulled it out and hit himself in the head. And I don' t think he did that.
Furthermore, Gray undisputedly had two hands on the winch bar, when the
incident happened, and was pushing the bar down. In his trial testimony, Gray
10 agreed that, as a driver, it was his responsibility to be aware of what he is doing,
the position of his body, and everything else while binding down a load. Gray
agreed that no one can look out for his safety but him.
Glenn further testified that training also covers a driver' s responsibility
relative to completing pre and post -trip logs, which document the pre -trip
inspection and the post -trip inspection. Glenn stated that drivers are instructed
how to complete the log, which is a DOT required document. Glenn testified that a
pre -trip visual inspection may not detect a problem with a winch; however, if the
driver used the winch and had problems with it, then he would be obligated to
indicate this on the post -trip driver' s log. Glenn agreed that his instruction to the
driver doing the training would be that, if issues were not noted, then drivers are
violating company policy and the law. Glenn pointed out that defects must be
documented, even if the truck owner does the repairs.
The Driver' s Daily Log included a section captioned as " Driver' s Daily 3 Vehicle Inspection Report Required by the D. O.T. Safety Regulations —Part 396."
The log directs drivers to " CHECK ANY DEFECTIVE ITEM AND, IF
NECESSARY, GIVE DETAILS UNDER ` REMARKS'." Although the log does
not expressly list winches, it includes " OTHER PARTS AND ACCESSORIES AS
3 49 CFR 396. 11( a)( 2)-( 3) titled " Driver vehicle inspection report( s)" states, in pertinent part:
2) Report content.
i) The report must identify the vehicle and list any defect or deficiency discovered by or reported to the driver which would affect the safety of operation of the vehicle or result in its mechanical breakdown....
3) Corrective action.
i) Prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.
ii) Every motor carrier or its agent shall certify on the driver vehicle inspection report which lists any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again....
11 REQUIRED BY DOT AND/ OR COMPANY POLICY," and the trial witnesses
agreed a defective winch could be noted on the log. Drivers are required to sign
the Driver' s Daily Log, which notes " I HAVE INSPECTED THE ABOVE
EQUIPMENT AND INDICATED ALL NOTICEABLE DEFECTS."
Tindell testified that, prior to the incident, he had been using the trailer at
issue for six months to a year, and he had experienced problems with winches
spinning including the subject winch, which he stated was " skipping and trying to
slow you down." Tindell testified that he told Knight he needed to fix the winches,
as they were worn out, and Knight said he would take care of it. However, Tindell
did not note any of those malfunctions on the daily log, asserting Knight told him
not to do so. Tindell testified Knight told drivers not to write down or make notes
of maintenance and repair issues and told them to give them to him verbally.
When asked to explain why they were not " allowed" to make notations of
maintenance and repairs needed, Tindell stated, "[ W] e would tell Mr. Albert
Knight] about it so he could fix the problem. If we turned it in, United Vision
would shut the truck down and Mr. Knight would not be able to make money from
the truck and neither would I."
Tindell maintained that, if something was not put on the form, then UVL
would not know anything about it, because if they would know about it, they " shut
the truck down." As to whether a defective winch would disqualify a trailer from
service, Tindell testified:
Q: ... if you filled out this document and said a certain winch or certain winches on Mr. Knight' s trailer had thrown me down and this was before Mr. Gray' s incident, as far as you know, United Vision would have gotten that information and either forced the repair of those things or disqualified the trailer from service, yes? A: No. Q: What would they have done? A: They wouldn' t have done anything because the — if I had wrote -- if I had wrote winch on there, they shut the truck and trailer down anyway, but the only thing that would have been written in was that a
12 winch slipped or a winch malfunctioned, that would be it. That' s not really to them a safety issue. Q: So if you wrote down winch malfunction, I think you said, they pull the trailer out of service?
A: They probably would. They might. I don' t know.
However, Gray testified that Tindell never told him about the issue with the
winches on the subject trailer. He stated that, although he had not had problems
with the subject winch, he told Knight about other winches on that trailer that had
given him trouble with the pawls not engaging and looking worn down. Per Gray,
Knight advised he would fix it. Gray agreed he had to turn in daily logs and note
maintenance issues on such. However, Iike Tindell, Gray testified Knight told
them not to mark any maintenance issues or anything wrong with the truck on the
logs; instead, drivers were to let him know and he would take care of it, as the
truck and trailer would be taken " out of service" and " shut ... down." In this
regard, Gray agreed he knowingly signed off on incorrect forms required by DOT
and turned them in to UVL.
At trial, Knight testified that it was not true that he requires drivers to
confront him first verbally with what needs to be fixed before they turn in their
paperwork to UVL, and he further disputed that he told Gray and Tindell not to
write down maintenance and repair problems. However, Knight did not recall
Tindell verbally telling him on multiple occasions, before Gray was hurt, that some
of the winches on the subject trailer were malfunctioning.
Todd Daigle (" Daigle"), UVL' s regional safety manager in April 2014,
testified that he inspected the trailer at issue two weeks before the incident. In his
visual inspection, he saw no issues with the winches, and Gray did not tell him
about any problems with the winches. Daigle testified he never has received
reports or had any problems with Knight keeping his equipment in a state of repair
and safe operation. When asked. what he would do if a driver told him about a
problem that his boss told him not to report, Daigle explained he would go
13 immediately to that item and make sure it actually is out of compliance; once
confirmed it is out of compliance, it would be noted, and the driver would be
instructed to annotate his paperwork and turn it in, holding the owner accountable.
Daigle testified that, if a defect is found, he explains the findings to " the driver or
the owner, whoever ... presented the truck ... and they have to take care of it."
Daigle testified that failing to put things on the logs is breaking the law, and there
are repercussions.
As outlined above, in its July 29, 2021 judgment, the trial court found Gray
was 70% at fault for failing to properly report maintenance issues with the trailer
and for causing the accident and resulting injuries. After a thorough review of the
record and considering the factors set forth in Watson, sura, we find the record
provides a reasonable basis for the trial court' s allocation of fault.
While we cannot say Gray' s failure to report maintenance issues with the
trailer caused his accident, as he testified he had not noted a previous issue with the
subject winch and no evidence reflects how long the trailer would have been taken
out of service to repair other defective winches ( if at all), we find the position of
Gray' s body was a cause of the accident and his injuries. Gray had both hands on
the winch bar at the time of the accident, and the evidence reflects his head was
close enough for the winch bar to hit him. Gray attended UVL orientation twice,
and UVL trains drivers to face the trailer with the winch bar off to the right,
stabilize themselves on the trailer by grabbing the rub rail, and properly tension the
bar with the other hand. UVL training further instructs that the driver' s head
should not be over the bar, and Glenn testified that it is not an acceptable
procedure to use two hands on the winch bar, and they do not train this way.
Gray agreed that, as a driver, it was his responsibility to be aware of what he
is doing, the position of his body, and everything else while binding down a load.
Gray further agreed that no one can look out for his safety but him. Gray admitted
14 he was taught to place his left hand on the truck, use his right hand and shoulder to
push down the bar, and keep his head away from the bar, and we find this
demonstrates awareness of the dangers, especially as he testified he had trouble
with other winches on the trailer. As to the significance of what was sought by
Gray' s conduct in using two hands on the bar, he testified he was using two hands
in order to " push the bar down." However, Glenn testified it was not acceptable
procedure or proper for a driver, when tensioning a load, to take his hand off the
trailer for the last two clicks, even if he stabilizes himself in a sturdy stance and
uses two hands to put the last bit of pressure on the bar. Glenn stated they teach
drivers the forward -facing positioning because there have been " injuries" in the
past. Thus, we find Gray' s conduct herein created a greater risk, and there is no
evidence to suggest extenuating circumstances required Gray to proceed in haste
without proper thought.
As a court of review, our inquiry on appeal is whether the trial court' s
factual findings herein were reasonable and amply supported by the record,
regardless of how we may have weighed the evidence if we were sitting as the trier
of fact. Welch v. London, 2020- 0362 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12130/ 20), 2020 WL
7768715, * 3 ( unpublished). Moreover, we are also aware that the allocation of
fault is not an exact science, or the search for one precise ratio, but rather an
acceptable range, and any allocation by the fact finder within that range cannot be
clearly wrong. Schexnayder, p. 13, 190 So. 3d at 774. Accordingly, applying the
manifest error standard of review, we find a reasonable factual basis in the record
for the trial court' s application of comparative fault to the facts of this case. We
further find that an allocation of 70% fault to Gray for causing the accident and
resulting injuries was not manifestly erroneous.
15 CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the July 29, 2021 judgment of the trial court
is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiffs -appellants, Courtney D.
Gray and Shana M. Gray.
AFFIRMED.