The standard for appellate review of the trial court's findings of fact is manifest error, or whether the fact finder was clearly wrong. Garrity v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 07-965 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 984 So.2d 900, 904, writ denied, 08-1051 (La.8/29/08), 989 So.2d 106.) In addition, the reviewing court must review the record in its entirety and find a reasonable factual basis either does or does not exist for the findings in order to affirm, modify or reverse the trial court.
August 29, 2008. Prior report: La.App., 984 So.2d 900. In re Essex Insurance Company; M.G. Mayer Yacht Services Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 614-110; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 07-CA-965.
The standard of review of factual findings on appeal is the manifest error or clearly wrong standard. Garrity v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 07-965 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 984 So.2d 900, writ denied, 08-1051 (La. 8/29/08), 989 So.2d 106. Under that standard, it is not whether the reviewing court would have made different findings had it been sitting as the fact-finder, but rather whether on the record as a whole, there is a reasonable basis for the findings made, and if not, whether the findings are clearly wrong. Id. at 904.
Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882. The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the fact finder was right or wrong, but whether the fact finder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Garrity v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 07–965 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 984 So.2d 900, 904,writ denied,08–1051 (La.8/29/08), 989 So.2d 106. ANALYSIS
When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error or clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trier of fact's findings because 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 belief in what is said. Garrity v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 07-965 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 984 So.2d 900, 904, writ denied, 2008-1051 (La.8/29/08), 989 So.2d 106. In response, Bodilly asserts Bottom Line cannot show on appeal that the trial court's judgment was unreasonable, considering the record in its entirety.
Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882 The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the fact finder was right or wrong, but whether the fact finder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Garrity v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 07-965, (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 984 So.2d 900, 904, writ denied, 08-1051 (La.8/29/08), 989 So.2d 106. Conversely, we review decisions of law de novo.
The issue to be resolved by the reviewing court is not whether the fact finder was right or wrong, but whether the fact finder's conclusion was a reasonable one. Garrity v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 07-965, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 984 So.2d 900, 903-04, mi denied, 08-1051 (La.8/29/08), 989 So.2d 106. At trial, Dr. Roux testified that plaintiff served as the secretary of Roux and Associates for a period of time during which he kept minutes of the shareholders' meetings and assisted in running the corporation.
The appellees contend that the trial court could reasonably have concluded that the cause of the accident was the plaintiffs actions in improperly merging into appellees lane of traffic, and that defendant did not have time to avoid the accident. In Garrity v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 07-965 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/15/08), 984 So.2d 900, 904, unit denied, 08-1051 (La.8/29/08), 989 So.2d 106, this court once again set forth the applicable standard of review: The standard of review by an appellate court of a district court's findings of fact is well known.