 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Castay v. Adm Growmark River Systems3/14/2001
ibution from ADM, because of ADM's pre-trial settlement, and is instead entitled to a credit of the percentage of fault assigned to ADM. Therefore, the trial judge erred in increasing Superior Scrap and Essex's percentage of fault from 26.7 percent to 50 percent. Accordingly, we reinstate Superior Scrap and Essex's percentage of fault at 26.7 percent.
Superior Scrap and Essex next contend that the plaintiffs failed to prove that their alleged fault was a legal cause of the accident. We disagree.
A trial court's factual findings cannot be disturbed in the absence of manifest error. If the trial court's findings are reasonable when viewed as a whole, an appellate court may not disturb those findings. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989).
Dr. Ali Reza, qualified by the trial court as an expert in the field of cause and origin of fires, testified that the cutting torches used by Superior Scrap were the cause of the ignition of the dust particles. He further testified that if the dryers had been properly cleaned prior to the cutting operation, the explosion would not have occurred.
The deposition of Barry Grundmann, the owner of Superior Scrap, and the testimony of Kelly Teel, the welding contractor, also support the jury's factual finding of liability on the part of Superior Scrap. Grundmann testified in his deposition that ADM and Quality Fab personnel instructed him to hose out the dryers from top to bottom. Kelly Teel, however, testified that Grundmann did not inform him that he should clean out the tops of the dryers. The evidence at trial further indicated that the crew only hosed out the bottom of the dryers, and the grain dust in the top of the dryer caused the explosion. Based on the foregoing, we find that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Superior Scrap was partially liable for plaintiff's injuries.
Additionally, defendant alleges that the trial court erred by awarding excessive general damages to Mr. Castay and excessive loss of consortium damages to Mrs. Castay.
The trier of fact is accorded much discretion in fixing general damage awards. Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La. 1993), certiorari denied, Maritime Oversees Corp. v. Youn, 510 U.S. 1114, 114 S.Ct. 1059, 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (La. 1994). The discretion vested in the trier of fact is great, "even vast," so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages. Id. It is only when the award is, in either direction, beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the particular circumstances that the appellate court should increase or decrease the award. Id.
Castay was injured when the grain dryer upon which he stood was engulfed in flames. While on fire, he had to jump from one grain dryer to another over an 80-foot gap between the two. Because of the force with which he landed on the other dryer, he suffered back injury .
Kelly Teel saw Castay moments after the explosion. He observed what he described as a ball of fire come out of the top of the dryer, crossing over from one dyer to another. He described Castay's hair as looking like melted plastic. He recalled that Castay and Bourgeois were stranded at the top of the dryer for a long period of time after the accident.
Castay himself testified at trial about the extent of his injuries. His testimony revealed that he was admitted to the ICU and was hospitalized for ten days. He underwent four very painful debridement procedures. He was afraid to look at his own face for several days after the accident. He suffered back pain while he
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.
|
|