 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ruttley v. Lee5/17/2000
rial court found that it was difficult to see clearly onto Ames Boulevard from Pritchard Street because of the sight obstructions in the right of way. The record supports the trial court's conclusions. Both Trooper Freese and Trooper Vittitoe stated that they found that the visual obstructions caused the sight line to only be 227 feet from the stop sign at Ames Boulevard.
Ms. Gill testified that she complained numerous times to Councilman Lawson and the "weed control people" about the sight obstructions at the Pritchard/Ames intersection. George Dent, superintendent for Jefferson Parish, testified that he cut the grass and trees at the Ames/ Pritchard intersection every 14 days and checked the area for vegetation overgrowth. Further, it is clear that several accidents had occurred at that intersection because drivers did not see the other vehicles approaching. The shrubbery and tree limbs could have easily been cut or removed, thereby removing the obstruction.
LSA-R.S. 48:35 provides that the Parish of Jefferson should conform to the safety standards promulgated by the AASHTO with respect to the design, construction, and maintenance of highways. Dr. Blaschke, the defendant's expert, testified that the sight line should be 300 feet at the Pritchard/Ames intersection because the speed limit on Ames Boulevard is 30 miles per hour. From the photographs, he determined that the distance at that intersection was 300 feet. Trooper Freese and Trooper Vittitoe testified that they measured the distance at the scene and it was 227 feet. The trial court found Trooper Vittitoe's and Trooper Freese's testimony credible. While the plaintiffs did not produce an expert on accident reconstruction as part of their case, it is clear that there was sufficient testimony to determine that the sight obstructions were a cause in fact of this accident.
An appellate court may not set aside a trial court's findings of fact in the absence of clear or manifest error. Stobart v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 (La.1993); Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844-845 (La.1989). To reverse a trial court's factual determinations, a court of appeal must find, from the record, that there is no reasonable factual basis for the findings and that the findings are clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1127 (La.1987).
We find sufficient support in the record for the trial court's factual findings that the sight obstructions on the right of way on Ames Boulevard posed an unreasonable risk of harm and that this defect was a cause-in-fact of Stacey's injuries. See Holt, 671 So.2d at 1172. We cannot conclude that these findings are either clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous.
Having found no error in the trial court's assessment of some liability/fault on the part of defendant, Parish of Jefferson, we now examine the trial court's determination that Stacey was also negligent in causing the accident.
Individual drivers owe a duty of being reasonably observant of conditions that either might affect the operation or use of their vehicles that would pose an unreasonable risk of harm to others. Id. at 1171. This includes the duty to use their automobiles reasonably and to maintain a proper lookout for hazards which might pose an unreasonable risk of harm. Id.
While Stacey was attempting to proceed across a favored thoroughfare, the intersection of Ames Boulevard and Pritchard Street, Stacey was bound by LSA-R.S. 32:123(B), which provides in part:
very driver and operator of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop before entering the cross walk on the near side at a clearly
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.
|
|