No witness testified that Mrs. Farley did not receive $15 weekly from her husband. Witnesses for the plaintiff affirmatively testified that she did receive $15 weekly from her husband, that she had no other means of support, and that she purchased groceries and clothing and paid for entertainment with this money. We are aware of the rules that a court is not obliged to accept the testimony of a witness even though it be uncontroverted (McIntire v. McBeath, La.App., 57 So.2d 707), and that mere possibilities and even unsupported probabilities are insufficient to support a judgment (Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance Company, La.App., 92 So.2d 781), but we are also cognizant of the rule that to accept the theory of improbability, the improbability must be apparent (Johnson v. Tregle, La.App., 8 So.2d 755). In the instant matter, we see nothing improbable about a man's having contributed to the support of his wife, who was separated from him by judgment of court, when his earnings justified the contribution.
Mere possibilities and even unsupported probabilities are insufficient to support a judgment. See Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance Company, 92 So.2d 781 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1957) and the cases cited therein. Upon review of the facts, as disclosed by the record, we can only conclude that plaintiff failed to establish his claim for future medical expenses by the requisite preponderance of evidence.
Neither may decisions be predicated on more assumptions of facts. Johnson v. Kennedy, supra; Bates v. Monzingo, 221 La. 479, 59 So.2d 693. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal, in the case of Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance Company, La. App., 92 So.2d 781, stated: The burden of proof is upon plaintiff, and, as has been declared in a long line of decisions, it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to make out a case that is merely probable but the requirement is that he must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence with legal certainty.
Neither may decisions be predicated on more assumptions of facts. Johnson v. Kennedy, supra; Bates v. Monzingo, 221 La. 479, 59 So.2d 693. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal, in the case of Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance Company, La. App., 92 So.2d 781, stated: "The burden of proof is upon plaintiff, and, as has been declared in a long line of decisions, it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to make out a case that is merely probable but the requirement is that he must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence with legal certainty.
It is true that speculation, conjecture, mere possibility, and even unsupported probability are not sufficient to support a judgment. Crier v. Marquette Casualty Co., La.App., 159 So.2d 26; Ulmer v. Travelers Insurance Co., La.App., 156 So.2d 98; Smith v. Massachusetts Bonding Insurance Co., La.App., 130 So.2d 153; Moore v. Employers Liability Assur. Co., La.App., 124 So.2d 804; Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., La.App., 92 So.2d 781; Henderson v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., La.App., 80 So.2d 438; Pinkney v. Cahn Inv. Co., La.App., 32 So.2d 345. However, when one has suffered multiple injuries as Plaintiff did, and who had to undergo the oral and chest surgery described above, it is more probable than not, because of his weakened condition, that he became a ready prey to the subsequent attack of hemoptysis.
At best, the evidence establishes only a mere possibility or conjecture, which is insufficient to conclude as a fact Plaintiff has proven his case by a preponderance of the evidence to a legal certainty. In Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance Company, La.App., (1957) 92 So.2d 781, 783 we find: "The burden of proof is upon plaintiff, and, as has been declared in a long line of decisions, it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to make out a case that is merely probable but the requirement is that he must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence with legal certainty.
In giving consideration to the testimony relating to this phase of this litigation, certain well-recognized principles of law must be borne in mind. For instance, as stated in Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance Company, La. App.2d Cir., 1957, 92 So.2d 781, 783: "The burden of proof is upon plaintiff, and, as has been declared in a long line of decisions, it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to make out a case that is merely probable but the requirement is that be must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence with legal certainty.