 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Merrells v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company6/21/2000
Judgment rendered June 21, 2000.
Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
Cloteal and Jenkins Merrells ("plaintiffs") appeal the trial court's denial of their personal injury claims. We affirm.
Facts
On September 28, 1998, Cloteal Merrells ("Merrells") was westbound on Harvey Street in Winnsboro, Louisiana, when she stopped at a four-way stop sign at the Bosworth Street intersection. Merrells was driving a 1989 Chevrolet Beretta. At the stop sign, Elaine Williams ("Williams"), who was driving a 1984 Oldsmobile 88, rear-ended Merrells' car. Merrells claimed that Williams did not come to a stop prior to striking her vehicle, but Williams claimed that after she stopped her car, her foot slipped off the brake pedal causing her car to roll forward into Merrells' vehicle. Merrells immediately exited her vehicle and approached Williams complaining of back pain and inquiring whether Williams was insured. Later that day, Merrells sought emergency room medical treatment complaining of low back and neck pain. Thereafter, Dr. J. D. Patterson ("Patterson") treated her complaints from October 7, 1998 to January 8, 1999.
As a result of the accident, plaintiffs instituted suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. ("State Farm") and Williams alleging negligence and praying for damages. After the defendants stipulated that Williams was at fault in causing the accident, the only issue remaining for trial was causation and extent of injuries and damages. After a bench trial, the court denied plaintiffs' claims because they had " ailed to show a causal connection between the negligence of the defendant and the injuries that Merrells now complains of." This appeal ensued.
Discussion
Property Damage Estimator's Testimony
Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in allowing testimony from State Farm's property damage estimator, Dewayne Chapman ("Chapman"), regarding the force of impact of the collision and the damage to the bumper of Merrells' vehicle because he was not qualified as an expert witness in these matters. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that Chapman's testimony relating to these facts could not have been rationally based upon his perceptions. Moreover, plaintiffs argue that Chapman did not possess the requisite training, experience or expertise to give an expert opinion on these two things.
Generally, a witness not testifying as an expert may not give testimony in the form of opinions or inferences. However, the rule is subject to the limited exception of La. C.E. art. 701 which provides that a lay witness may provide testimony in the form of opinions or inferences where those opinions or inferences are rationally based upon the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or determination of a fact at issue. Cho v. Royal Oldsmobile Co., Inc. 98-527 (La. App. 5th Cir. 11/25/98), 722 So. 2d 1138; Louisiana Land and Exploration Co. v. Verdin, 95-2579 (La. App. 1st Cir. 09/27/96), 681 So. 2d 63, writ denied, 96-2629 (La. 12/13/96), 692 So. 2d 1067, cert denied, 520 U. S. 1212, 177 S. Ct. 1696, 137 L. Ed. 2d 822 (1997).
The trial court is vested with much discretion in determining first, which opinion testimony shall be received into evidence and second, whether it will be received as lay or expert testimony. Cho, supra; Griffin v. Tenneco Oil Co., 625 So. 2d 1090 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1993), writ denied, 93-2710 (La. 01/07/94), 631 So. 2d 449.
In this case, Chapman testified that he inspected and photographed plaintiffs' vehicle for the purpose of a damage estimate. He described the b
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|