 |
 |
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
fifty-seven) and Williams (age seventy-four) in the causation ruling.
In a personal injury suit, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a causal relationship between the accident and any alleged injuries. Harper v. Garcia, 32,142 (La. App. 2d Cir. 08/18/99), 739 So. 2d 996. Whether the accident caused the plaintiff's injuries is a factual question which should not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error. Id.
The trial court may evaluate an expert's testimony by the same rules applicable to other witnesses. Harper, supra. After weighing and evaluating medical testimony, the trial judge may accept or reject a medical expert's opinion. Id.
At trial, via deposition testimony, Patterson opined that Merrells' injuries were caused by the accident. Nevertheless, the record shows that the trial court rejected this conclusion. Considering that Patterson's testimony connected the injury with the accident only through the history Merrells gave him, his admission that Merrells could have intentionally caused her muscle tension, her history of pre-existing arthritis, and a prior automobile accident in which she apparently sustained similar injuries of which she now complains, we find this credibility determination to be a reasonable one. Moreover, the trial court's reasons for judgment show that the court accepted Williams' version of the accident, i.e. that the automobile idled forward at a very low rate of speed, and rejected Merrells' claims regarding the hard impact. Because both the photographs and police report support Williams' version of the facts, we find no error in the court's choice of this permissible view of the evidence. Additionally, we read the trial court's mention of Merrells' claim that the injuries immediately manifested themselves, and the comparison of both parties' ages to have been part of that credibility analysis. Also important for purposes of our review is the fact that the trial court observed the witnesses as they testified and could take note of their demeanor and tone of voice in order to assess their credibility. When presented with the particular facts of this case, we cannot say that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the evidence was unreasonable or erroneous. Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.
Finally, as we have previously discussed, we find no error in the trial court's consideration of Chapman's lay opinion. Neither do we discern error in the weight given to the testimony by the trial court. Undoubtedly, Chapman had experience in and was assessing the vehicle damage for the purpose of insurance estimates; this was his occupation. Moreover, Chapman's description of the impact as "very minor" was clearly corroborated by both the police report and photographs of the vehicle entered into evidence. And, of course, force-of-impact testimony is a relevant factor in determining causation or extent of injuries. Harper, supra. Considering these factors and the great discretion given to the trial court regarding credibility determinations, we cannot find that the trial court attached undue weight to Chapman's testimony.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court at Merrells' costs.
AFFIRMED.
|