 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burell v. Sharp9/22/2000
and laughing.
In concluding that plaintiffs failed to show they suffered injuries as a result of the accident, the trial judge obviously accepted the testimony of Sharp and his guest passenger and rejected the testimony of plaintiffs and their treating chiropractor. Plaintiffs allege that the trial judge erred when it did not accept the testimony of their chiropractor as fact when he was the only expert to testify at trial as to plaintiffs' alleged injuries.
The effect and weight to be given expert testimony is within the broad discretion of the trial judge. The importance placed upon such testimony is largely dependent upon the expert's qualifications and the facts that form the basis of his opinion. Thornton ex rel. Laneco Constr. Sys., Inc. v. Lanehart, 97-2871 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/98), 723 So.2d 1127, writ denied, 99-0177 (La. 3/19/99), 740 So.2d 115. Expert opinion, even uncontradicted, is not binding on the trial court. Thornton, 97- 2831, p. 5, 723 So.2d at 1131; Bachemin v. Anderson, 97-2471 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/29/98), 717 So.2d 677. In written reasons for judgment, the trial judge stated, " aking into account the totality of the testimony, the normal speed of a car leaving a parking space and the law of physics, plaintiffs' (sic) have failed to show any injury from the accident." We have carefully considered the evidence in the record and cannot say this finding is manifestly erroneous.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellants, Mary Burell, Chinelle Straughter, and Barbara Straughter.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|