Opinion
2022 CA 1030
04-14-2023
REVEN COMPTON v. EMMA PERRY, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND ACCC INSURANCE COMPANY (UM)
Reven Compton Manuel, TX, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro se. Kellye R. Grinton, Kennedy M. Rose, Michael B. Scallan, Baton Rouge, LA, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company & Emma Perry.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
APPEALED FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 692471 HONORABLE TIMOTHY E. KELLEY, JUDGE PRESIDING
Reven Compton Manuel, TX, Plaintiff-Appellant Pro se.
Kellye R. Grinton, Kennedy M. Rose, Michael B. Scallan, Baton Rouge, LA, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company & Emma Perry.
BEFORE: McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, JJ.
GREENE, J.
In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for damages following a car accident in a parking lot. After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs claims with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed that judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiff, Reven Compton, was involved in a minor two-car accident in a parking lot at a medical center located at 5000 Hennessy Boulevard in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 14, 2019. Ms. Compton was driving a 2009 Audi A4 and the other driver, Emma Perry, was driving a 2003 Mercedes E320. On January 6, 2020, Ms. Compton filed a petition for damages naming as defendants Ms. Perry, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Ms. Perry's insurer, hereafter State Farm), and ACCC Insurance Company (also Ms. Perry's insurer, hereafter ACCC). Ms. Compton alleged that she suffered injuries and damages as a result of the accident.
State Farm answered the petition, admitted coverage and otherwise generally denied the allegations, and raised affirmative defenses. ACCC also answered the petition; however, ACCC was later given a stay from the proceedings after it went into receivership in Texas.
The case proceeded to a bench trial against Ms. Perry and State Farm on April 26, 2022. Ms. Compton represented herself by the time of trial. Ms. Compton testified that Ms. Perry was backing into a parking spot when Ms. Perry hit Ms. Compton's car. Ms. Compton's recollection of the accident was somewhat confusing. However, a photograph of Ms. Compton's car shows scratches and minimal damage to her left front bumper.
Ms. Compton testified she had been in one previous automobile accident, but did not recall any injuries from that collision. She denied having any injuries or accidents of any kind after the parking lot accident. Ms. Compton related many of her life experiences to the parking lot accident, including three miscarriages and the death of her grandfather, due to "stress" from the accident. Ms. Compton testified that she was not working at the time of the accident, but that she had been planning to take a job that paid $20,000.00 per month performing cancer screenings. Ms. Compton did not introduce any evidence at the trial and did not present any witnesses other than herself. She stated that she had lost her records pertaining to the parking lot accident after she moved a number of times.
After the trial court dismissed her suit, Ms. Compton stated that her evidence had been left in her car and that her car had been repossessed. The trial court noted that if Ms. Compton had asked for a continuance before the trial began, the trial court probably would have granted it, but she had failed to ask for a continuance.
On cross-examination, Ms. Compton could not remember the cost of the repairs to her vehicle, and she could not recall whether she suffered from head, neck, and back injuries prior to the parking lot accident. She could not recall being treated for those issues prior to the parking lot accident. When confronted with her medical records from Family Chiropractic Clinic showing treatment for neck and back pain before the parking lot accident, Ms. Compton did not disagree with the records.
Also on cross-examination, Ms. Compton admitted that two months before the parking lot accident, in December of 2018, she was in a physical altercation at Fresh Pickins where she was "jacked by the arm and suffered some injuries," although she could not recall receiving treatment at Family Chiropractic Clinic following that incident. The medical records showed that she received treatment for neck pain, low back pain, pain radiating into her arms, and a swollen arm after the incident at Fresh Pickins. Further, Ms. Compton could not recall being involved in a motor vehicle accident in January of 2018 and being treated at Family Chiropractic Clinic for her injuries. The medical records showed that she received treatment for neck and back pain after that incident. After being shown the medical records, Ms. Compton stated those injuries were "different." Ms. Compton further admitted on cross-examination that she was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Houston, Texas in November of 2020.
The Family Chiropractic Clinic record from February 28, 2019, shows that Ms. Compton was not pregnant on that date. Ms. Compton testified that she did not find out she was pregnant until sometime after the accident, and that her miscarriage occurred several months later.
At the close of the trial, the trial court found that Ms. Compton was unable to show that Ms. Perry was responsible for the accident, stating that "the things where you don't recall are things that were important to meet your burden of proof." The trial court stated that Ms. Compton's testimony had been "successfully impeached" and noted that "your credibility was - was not real high with regard to this particular matter." The trial court found that Ms. Compton had failed to prove liability, causation, or damages, and it dismissed her suit with prejudice. The trial court signed the judgment on May 10, 2022. Ms. Compton appealed that judgment.
MOTON TO SUPPLEMENT
Ms. Compton filed a motion to supplement with this Court, wherein it appears that she is seeking to replace Exhibit 1, a drawing of the accident scene produced by the trial court, with documents attached to her motion. The documents attached to this motion were not properly introduced into evidence at trial. Appellate courts are courts of record, and may not review evidence that is not in the appellate record, or receive new evidence. Medical Review Panel for Bush, 2021-00954 (La. 5/13/22), 339 So.3d 1118,1124; see also La. C.C.P. art. 2164. Thus, the motion to supplement is denied.
The trial court received consent from both Ms. Compton and the defendants to use the drawing as Exhibit 1 before it was entered into evidence.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Ms. Compton asserts that she did not receive a fair trial and that the attorney for the other side had more knowledge about trials than she did. Ms. Compton states that "an incident" occurred on her premises the day before the trial that prevented her from having the documents to prove her case. She also maintains that during a break in the trial, the trial court was giving the defense attorney "more information."
The trial court found that Ms. Compton failed to prove that Ms. Perry was responsible for the accident and that she suffered injuries caused by the accident. When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error-clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trial court's findings, for only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding and believe in what he said. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). There is a two-part test to determine if a factfinder's determinations warrant reversal: (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). Stobart v. State through Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (1993).
Ms. Compton's testimony lacked credibility, as she was impeached numerous times on cross-examination, and her testimony was refuted by the medical records entered into evidence by the defendants. While Ms. Compton maintains that she was unable to produce the documents to prove her claim at the time of trial, she failed to ask for a continuance of the trial in order to obtain her documents.
Regarding Ms. Compton's argument that during a break in the trial the trial court gave the defense attorney more information, our review of the record shows that the trial court had a bench conference with both the plaintiff and the defense attorney during the trial, which concerned technical rules of the trial and not the merits of the case, and Ms. Compton had agreed that the bench conference would be off the record. At a later brief restroom break, the trial court explained that the court had been talking to one of the defense attorneys about a different case. Our review shows that the trial court conducted the proceedings in an evenhanded and impartial manner and that the trial court took generous amounts of time throughout the trial to explain to Ms. Compton how the trial process worked and what she needed to prove as the plaintiff in the case. After a thorough review, we find no manifest error in the trial court judgment. See Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882, CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to supplement is denied. The trial court judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Emma Perry, and against Reven Compton, dismissing the suit with prejudice, is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are assessed against Reven Compton.
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.