 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lyons v. J.A. Auger6/12/2002
This appeal arises out of an auto accident involving a 1994 Subaru, driven by Kelly Jo Allen, and a 1994 International tractor trailer driven by Francis Brown for J. A. Auger, Inc. The children of Ms. Allen, through their tutrix, Joan Lyons, appeal the trial court's judgment finding that they had not carried their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Brown was at fault for the accident. We affirm.
Facts
On October 15, 1998, at about 6:30 a.m., Kelly Jo Allen was driving to work at Bancroft Bag and Francis Brown was driving an 18-wheeler from J.A. Auger Trucking in Farmerville to the paper mill in West Monroe, La.
Both were driving south on North 7th Street, a four-lane road in West Monroe, La. Prior to the collision, Mr. Brown and his rig were in the inside or left-hand lane; Ms. Allen, in her Subaru, was in the outside or right-hand lane. Near the intersection of Drago Street and North 7th Street, the vehicles collided, causing Ms. Allen's car to spin and cross the centerline, where it was struck by a second 18-wheeler in the oncoming, northbound, lanes. Ms. Allen died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident.
The children of Ms. Allen, through their tutrix, Joan Lyons, brought this action against Brown, J.A. Auger, Inc., and their insurer Reliance Insurance Company. The plaintiffs alleged that Brown was at fault for the accident and sought damages for wrongful-death, pre-impact fear, and special damages.
After a full trial on the merits, the trial court found that the plaintiffs had not carried their burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Brown was at fault for the accident, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with prejudice. The court found that Mr. Brown was operating his truck in a prudent and safe manner, that he had remained in his lane, the inside lane, at all times, and that Ms. Allen was at fault for the accident.
The plaintiffs appeal asserting two assignments of error. First, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in allowing an expert witness for the defense to testify as to his use of a computer simulation without demonstrating its requisite reliability pursuant to Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Second, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court did not properly consider all of the evidence.
Discussion - Expert Testimony
The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in allowing testimony concerning Mr. Gonzales's use of a computer simulation without demonstrating its requisite reliability pursuant to Daubert's guidelines for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Daubert, supra at 588. The plaintiffs argue that the computer program used could not properly simulate the actual vehicles involved in this accident and that therefore it was not reliable under the Daubert standard as scientific evidence.
In this case, Mr. Alfred Gonzales was accepted by the court as an expert in accident reconstruction for the defendants. Mr. Gonzales is a retired trooper for the State Police, who has practiced as a full time accident reconstructionist for 13 years, and is certified by the Accreditation Commission for Traffic Accident Reconstructionists. He testified that he has been accepted as an expert in accident reconstruction almost one hundred times by the courts of three states, including Louisiana. His qualifications as an expert are not challenged by plaintiffs in this appeal. Mr. Gonzales testified that it was his expert opinion that Ms. Allen's vehicle encroached into the path of Mr. Brown's 18-wheeler.
Mr. Gonzales stated that he based his opinion sole
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|