 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stokes v. Stewart12/22/2000
tained for the time period during which he did not have the use of his dump truck.
Finally, the record contains several estimates of business and income that Mr. Stokes lost during the weeks that his truck was being repaired that support the trial court's award for loss of income.
Thus, finding no abuse of discretion, we need not resort to prior awards to determine the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion. However, our review of similar cases shows that the damage award is neither above the highest point nor below the lowest point reasonably awarded in other cases. See, e.g., Perez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 608 So. 2d 1006 (La. 1992); Samuel v. Vicknair, 31,049 (La. App. 2d Cir. 9/23/98), 718 So. 2d 634; Gage v. Potts, 94-1452 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/7/95), 653 So. 2d 1183.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, that portion of the trial court's judgment in favor of appellees, Richard L. and Genia C. Stokes, and against appellant, Tommy Perkins, Jr., is reversed; judgment is rendered in favor of Tommy Perkins, Jr., and against appellees, Richard L. Stokes and Genia C. Stokes, dismissing their claims against him with prejudice. That portion of the trial court judgment entitling Credit General Insurance Company to a judgment against Tommy Perkins, Jr., on the cross claim for all amounts in which Credit General Insurance Company is cast in judgment is also reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
GONZALES, J., dissenting in part.
I dissent in part. I disagree with the majority's reversal of ordinary damages against Mr. Perkins. There is a reasonable basis in the record to support the trial court's determination that Mr. Stewart was on a "mission of the owner" for Mr. Perkins when the accident occurred.
Before this court can reverse on a factual determination, it must engage in a manifest error analysis. Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882-883 (La. 1993). Reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review where conflict exists in the testimony. Rosell v. Esco, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989). Where two permissible views of the evidence exist, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La. 1973).
The trial court apparently believed the testimony of Sgt. Darrell Arceneaux and Mr. Stokes, as well as some of the admissions by Mr. Perkins, regarding whether Mr. Stewart was on a mission for Mr. Perkins.
This evidence constitutes a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's finding, and the majority errs in failing to give the trial court's finding deference. By concluding "we do not believe that Mr. Stewart was on a mission for Mr. Perkins at the time of the accident," the majority impermissibly substitutes its judgment and credibility determinations for that of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|