 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnston v. Hendricks6/12/2002
ied and confirmed that farm chemical spray caused plaintiff's eye injury and resulting eye infection. Dr. Lawrence J. D'Anna testified that plaintiff's eye injury resulted from his being sprayed with an oil-based Malathion mixture and resulted in a staph infection in and on his eye lid, his nose, his face and a number of other areas. In addition to the medical expert testimony, plaintiff and his wife and family members also confirmed that Mr. Johnston was not experiencing any of the injury symptoms prior to the accident and only began to suffer these injuries and symptoms after the accident or the spraying procedure had occurred. . . .
Considering the medical and lay testimony elicited by the plaintiffs and the limited rebuttal evidence on this issue submitted by the defendants, and realizing that the defendants are entitled to the benefits of the favorable jury verdict, and giving great [deference] to the jury in its factfinding process and rol , I believe that the plaintiff did meet their burden of proof and that Mr. Johnston was injured by the spray of Malathion emitted from the department's spraying device. . . . Therefore, I find that the verdict appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence and will result in a miscarriage of justice if not corrected.
Having reviewed the record in its entirety to determine whether the jury's verdict is supportable by any fair interpretation of the evidence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial. That there was an accident is undisputed. Regarding the crucial issue of causation, however, while disputing that plaintiffs' injuries were precipitated by the spraying incident, defendants offered very little evidence in support of their position. On the other hand, plaintiffs offered overwhelming lay and medical evidence that their injuries were in fact causally connected to the accident.
Conclusion
After reviewing the entire record and finding that the judgment of the trial court granting plaintiffs' motion for new trial was correct, we hereby deny defendants' writ application.
This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
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.
|
|