 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnston v. Hendricks6/12/2002
On Remand
Around 4:00 p.m. on September 28, 1999, Oscar Johnston was traveling south on Self Road in West Carroll Parish. Floyd Hendricks, an employee of the State Department of Agriculture and Forestry, was heading north on the same road. Johnston and Hendricks, who were neighbors, stopped their respective vehicles in the roadway and began talking about the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. Hendricks, who was in a state truck equipped with a spraying apparatus, lowered the sprayer and turned it on, releasing Malathion, a chemical used to kill boll weevils. Johnston claimed that the pesticide was sprayed in his face, causing extensive and severe injuries. Johnston and his wife, Mary, sued Floyd Hendricks and his employer, the State of Louisiana, Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, finding Floyd Hendricks solely at fault. Defendants' appeal from this partial summary judgment was denied by this court. Johnston v. Hendricks, 34,516 (La. App. 2d Cir. 04/04/01) (unpublished).
A jury trial on the remaining issue of damages was held September 18-21, 2000. The jury unanimously found that Oscar Johnston did not suffer any injury as a result of the accident in question and awarded no damages.
Plaintiffs filed motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The trial court denied JNOV but granted the motion for new trial. Defendants filed a writ application with this court seeking review of the trial court's judgment granting plaintiffs a new trial. This court denied the writ application . The supreme court, under its supervisory jurisdiction, ordered this court to reconsider defendants' application after giving them a reasonable opportunity to supplement their application with the entire record. Johnston v. Hendricks, 01-2616 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 979. We have done so and deny the writ application.
Discussion
The sole issue raised by defendants in their writ application is whether the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs' motion for new trial.
Applicable Legal Principles
In a personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a causal relationship between the accident and the complained-of injuries. Maranto v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 94-2603 (La. 02/20/95), 650 So.2d 757; American Motorist Insurance Co. v. American Rent-All, Inc., 579 So.2d 429 (La. 1991). Plaintiffs are aided in proving a causal relationship between the accident and their injuries by the legal presumption that a medical condition producing disability is presumed to have resulted from the accident if the injured person was in good health prior to the accident, but shortly after the accident, the disabling condition manifested itself. To overcome this presumption, the defendants must show that some other particular incident could have caused the injury in question. Maranto, supra; Lamb v. Berry, 35,347 (La. App. 2d Cir. 12/28/01), 803 So.2d 1084, writs denied, 98-1313, 98-1327 (La. 06/26/98), 719 So.2d 1063, 1287.
La.C.C.P. art. 1972 provides the peremptory grounds for the granting of a new trial. Article 1972 reads as follows:
A new trial shall be granted, upon contradictory motion of any party, in the following cases:
(1) When the verdict or judgment appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence.
(2) When the party has discovered, since the trial, evidence important to the cause, which he could not, with due diligence, have obtained before or during the trial.
The granting of a new trial is mandatory if the trial
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.
|
|