 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lara v. Knotts6/21/2000
on when the impact occurred. Mr. Lara also stated that he first got out of his truck after the crash to see if the occupants of the other car were hurt. To the contrary, Ms. Knotts testified that Mr. Lara told her that, after the truck stalled, he had been "fool with the cables" on the truck trying to get it started and that "he knew something like this was probably going to happen." Ms. Mason said that Mr. Lara told her, "I was afraid that was going to happen. That's the reason I got out of the truck;" she also said that Mr. Lara was quite wet from the rain.
Mr. Lara went home after the accident, but testified that he went to the emergency room the next day because he had shooting pains in his neck, arm and shoulder. At the hospital, Mr. Lara's back and chest were x-rayed. Mr. Lara did not relate that he received any treatment at the emergency room. He first saw Dr. Robert Holiday, his family physician, with complaints of pain on October 14, 1998, and returned two or three times for pain in his neck and arms. Dr. Holiday prescribed pain medication, exercise and a hot pack; and by February 8, 1999, Mr. Lara needed no further treatment.
On January 27, 1999, John Lara filed suit against Ms. Knotts and her insurer, State Farm, seeking damages for his personal injuries. Victorino Lara, the owner of the truck, sued Defendants for the property damage to his truck.
After hearing all of the testimony, the trial court rejected Plaintiffs' claims. The trial court found that the principal cause of the accident was the presence of Mr. Lara's stalled and unlit vehicle in the roadway under poor visibility conditions. The trial court stated that Ms. Knotts had a responsibility to drive her vehicle at a speed appropriate for the driving conditions, but said that there was no evidence she was driving at an improper speed. From the judgment rejecting their claims, Plaintiffs now appeal.
DISCUSSION
An allocation of fault is a factual determination subject to manifest error review. A court of appeal may not set aside a finding of fact in the absence of clear or manifest error. Boggs v. Voss, 31,965 (La. App. 2d Cir. 6/16/99), 741 So. 2d 139.
In Clark v. Natt, 32,548 (La. App. 2d Cir. 12/8/99), 748 So. 2d 584, writ denied, 2000-0084 (La. 3/17/00), __ So. 2d __, this court set forth the applicable law concerning the duty imposed upon Ms. Knotts:
La. R.S. 32:81 imposes a duty on a motorist not to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and condition of the highway. A following motorist in a rear-end collision is presumed to have breached this duty; accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that he is negligent. Boggs v. Voss, 31,965 (La. App. 2d Cir. 06/16/99), [741 So. 2d 139].
And, even though a motorist may assume that the road ahead is safe for travel, he must, when traveling after darkness, or in circumstances of limited or impaired visibility, observe and so control his vehicle as to avoid discernable objects in his path of travel; that is, in adverse conditions, a greater degree of care must be exercised. This rule, however, is subject to the well-established exception that a night driver is not charged with the duty of guarding against unusual or unexpected obstructions which he had no reason to anticipate he would encounter on the highway and which, under the circumstances, are difficult to discover. Jackson v. Scott Truck & Tractor, Inc., 31,933 (La. App. 2d Cir. 05/05/99), 736 So. 2d 987.
Under the sudden emergency doctrine, one who finds himself in a position of imminent peril, without sufficient time to
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|