 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Simms v. Progressive Insurance Co.9/29/2004
timony, which included extensive cross-examination about what part of Perot's eyewitness account he disregarded in forming his opinion. The jury also heard Perot's trial testimony. As such, all of the information relevant to an assessment of McPhate's opinion was in the record. Introduction of Perot's deposition would have been repetitive. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in disallowing introduction of Perot's testimony.
Jury Instructions
Appellants contend that trier of fact erred in its allocation of fault by failing to apply the "sudden emergency doctrine." They further contend that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury as to the applicable law.
When presented with allegations of improper jury charges, the reviewing court must assess the alleged "impropriety in light of the entire jury charge to determine if they adequately provide the correct principles of law as applied to the issues framed in the pleadings and evidence and whether they adequately guided the jury to the extent that it was prevented from dispensing justice." Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 99-2522 (La. 8/31/2000), 765 So. 2d 1017. Adequate jury instructions are those that fairly and reasonably point to the issues and provide the correct principles of law for the jury to apply. Kessler v. Southmark Corporation, 25,941 (La. App. 2d Cir. 9/21/94), 643 So. 2d 345.
An appellate court is charged to exercise great restraint before reversing a jury verdict because of erroneous jury instructions, as trial courts have broad discretion in formulating jury instructions. Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra. The trial court's judgment will not be reversed so long as the charge correctly states the substance of the law. Id. Where the jury has been erroneously instructed, an appellate court may conduct a de novo review of the facts from the record. Id.
The sudden emergency doctrine provides that a person "who finds himself in a position of imminent peril, without sufficient time to consider and weigh all the circumstances or the best means to adopt to avoid an impending danger, is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be the better method, unless the emergency is brought about by his own negligence...." Clark v. Natt, 32,548 (La. App. 2d Cir. 12/08/99), 748 So. 2d 584, writ denied, 00-0084 (La. 3/17/00), 756 So. 2d 1142. The defense argued that Williamson's view of Simms crossing the highway was blocked by a van, and her unexpected appearance in his path constituted a sudden emergency for which he was not at fault.
Review of the defense's proposed jury instructions shows that they did not request a specific instruction on the sudden emergency doctrine. Therefore, we find no basis for the complaint that the trial court did not instruct the jury as to that doctrine of law.
Nevertheless, appellants argue that they requested the equivalent of sudden emergency charges in their proposed instructions. The defense sought to have the jury instructed, through a number of proposed variations, that a pedestrian may not leave a position of safety to enter the path of a vehicle which is so close that it cannot yield; that motorists are not insurers of a pedestrian's safety; that a motorist has no duty to guard against unexpected obstacles which he has no reason to anticipate and are difficult to discover; and that a motorist has no duty to anticipate a pedestrian where there is no crosswalk. The defense objected to the trial court's omission of some of the specific proposed charges.
The trial court advised the jury as to the law of negligence, the respective duties of a pedestrian an
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|