Wilson v. Standard Accident Insurance Company

7 Citing cases

  1. Farley v. Ryan Stevedoring Co.

    238 La. 1048 (La. 1960)   Cited 27 times

    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.

  2. Stewart v. Hanover Ins. Co.

    416 So. 2d 286 (La. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 9 times
    In Stewart, we held that an intervenor was entitled to be reimbursed for weekly benefits it had paid to an injured employee out of any award to that employee whether for pain and suffering, lost wages, or general damages.

    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.

  3. Narcisse v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

    228 So. 2d 186 (La. Ct. App. 1969)

    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.

  4. Martin v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company

    183 So. 2d 769 (La. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 7 times
    In Martin v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, 183 So.2d 769, 773 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1966) this Court had occasion to review on appeal a similar factual situation where plaintiff claimed she suffered an abortion as a result of injuries received in an automobile which she was occupying as a passenger.

    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.

  5. Talley v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co.

    181 So. 2d 784 (La. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 13 times
    In Talley v. Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co., 181 So.2d 784 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1965) a male plaintiff received $10,000.

    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.

  6. Olano v. Rex Milling Co.

    154 So. 2d 555 (La. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  7. Brown v. Crocker

    139 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 9 times
    Affirming recovery of damages “for shock and mental anguish experienced” for “death of ... mare” and “loss of [stillborn] colt” “as a result of shooting”

    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.