From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abercrombie v. Maryland Casualty Company

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit
Jul 29, 1968
212 So. 2d 554 (La. Ct. App. 1968)

Opinion

No. 2400.

July 2, 1968. Rehearing Denied July 29, 1968.

APPEAL FROM NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF RAPIDES, WALTER M. HUNTER, J.

C. O. Brown, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellant.

Gist, Methvin Trimble, David Hughes, Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.

Before TATE, FRUGÉ, and SAVOY, JJ.


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 Abercrombies'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.

Nevertheless, 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 plaintiff's 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.


Summaries of

Abercrombie v. Maryland Casualty Company

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit
Jul 29, 1968
212 So. 2d 554 (La. Ct. App. 1968)
Case details for

Abercrombie v. Maryland Casualty Company

Case Details

Full title:Raymond ABERCROMBIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY…

Court:Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit

Date published: Jul 29, 1968

Citations

212 So. 2d 554 (La. Ct. App. 1968)

Citing Cases

Giluso v. Travelers Insurance Company

The question, therefore, before us is one as to the credibility of the witnesses. The cases in this State are…

Davis v. Bibb Manufacturing Co.

We can not say under these circumstances that the award for a 100-percent loss of use of the arm was not…