State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Youngblood

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Youngblood

331 So. 2d 500, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3678

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 19, 1976

DocketNo. 12886

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 331 So. 2d 500 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Youngblood) 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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Youngblood, 331 So. 2d 500, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3678 (La. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

BOLIN, Judge.

This is a suit for property damage to an automobile. Plaintiff driver lost control of his vehicle causing it to leave the highway and overturn. There is no dispute as to the proper parties and quantum was stipulated. The sole question in the lower court and on appeal is whether the non-contact accident was caused by the fault of plaintiff driver or defendant driver. For written reasons the trial court awarded damages to plaintiffs and defendant appeals. We affirm.

Appellant specifies the lower court erred in holding plaintiffs had borne the burden [501]*501of proof and in permitting a state trooper to give hearsay testimony as an expert.

In an excellent written opinion the trial judge reviewed the testimony of all witnesses except the trooper. He concluded the accident was caused by defendant driver overtaking plaintiff’s vehicle and suddenly veering his car directly back into the path of plaintiff’s vehicle, causing plaintiff driver to lose control of his car. This conclusion was based on the testimony of the two drivers and other eyewitnesses. The state trooper was permitted to testify as an expert. Assuming for the sake of argument this testimony was inadmissible, it apparently did not influence the trial judge’s decision and neither has it influenced this court’s decision.

After a careful review of the entire record we are in full accord with the written reasons of the trial judge. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

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

BOLIN, Judge.

This is a suit for property damage to an automobile. Plaintiff driver lost control of his vehicle causing it to leave the highway and overturn. There is no dispute as to the proper parties and quantum was stipulated. The sole question in the lower court and on appeal is whether the non-contact accident was caused by the fault of plaintiff driver or defendant driver. For written reasons the trial court awarded damages to plaintiffs and defendant appeals. We affirm.

Appellant specifies the lower court erred in holding plaintiffs had borne the burden [501]*501of proof and in permitting a state trooper to give hearsay testimony as an expert.

In an excellent written opinion the trial judge reviewed the testimony of all witnesses except the trooper. He concluded the accident was caused by defendant driver overtaking plaintiff’s vehicle and suddenly veering his car directly back into the path of plaintiff’s vehicle, causing plaintiff driver to lose control of his car. This conclusion was based on the testimony of the two drivers and other eyewitnesses. The state trooper was permitted to testify as an expert. Assuming for the sake of argument this testimony was inadmissible, it apparently did not influence the trial judge’s decision and neither has it influenced this court’s decision.

After a careful review of the entire record we are in full accord with the written reasons of the trial judge. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 So. 2d 500, 1976 La. App. LEXIS 3678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-youngblood-lactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack