 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McFann v. Southwestern Power Electric Co.12/14/2005
ust be of such an unusual nature or character as to render it peculiarly attractive to children. See Nguyen v. Crescent Land and Development Co., Inc. 88CA107 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/7/88), 527 So. 2d 456, writ denied, 88C2158 (La. 11/11/88), 532 So. 2d 769. That electricity is dangerous is common knowledge even for a 14-year old. In this case, however, Otis stated that he knew electrical wires were dangerous.
For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not manifestly err in finding no liability on the part of SWEPCO in this case.
By her second assignment of error, the appellant alleges that the trial court erred in allowing Jimmy Huelett and James Lindsey to testify as experts. Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously relied on Huelett's non-expert testimony to determine the extent of Otis McFann's injuries. Huelett did testify regarding his knowledge of electricity and his experience as to what kind of damage electrical shock can cause. He also testified regarding his observation of the pruning shears and that Otis told him that he had not been shocked.
Appellant contends that the trial court ignored all the evidence that Otis had been shocked by the electricity and relied on Huelett's testimony to determine the extent of Otis's injuries. He contends that Huelett was not qualified to diagnose Otis's medical condition.
In fact, Huelett made no medical determinations in the case, nor did he testify as to Otis's medical condition. He simply stated that Otis told him he had not been shocked, but that his face felt like it was sunburned, which is consistent with the testimony that the shears caused the wires to flash, but did not send any voltage into Otis because the shears were insulated and the nature of the phase to phase 240-volt system.
Finally, we note that Otis's medical records do not support the conclusion that the physical complaints of Otis were related to electrical shock.
Appellant also argues that the court erred by allowing James Lindsey to testify regarding the effects of electrical current on the body. Lindsey testified that he had never seen an entry or exit wound caused by 120 or 240 volts of electricity to the body. The court allowed the testimony based upon Lindsey's 11 years of experience as an electrical service technician. Appellant claims that this was not a proper foundation for expert testimony.
We find no error in allowing this testimony. Lindsey was certainly qualified to testify as to his experience and observations from working 11 years in this industry. Lindsey did not testify as a medical expert, nor did his testimony appear as such.
Finally, appellant contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to award general or special damages for Otis McFann's injuries. It contends that Otis suffered headaches, backaches, leg and foot pain, blurred vision, first or second degree burns on his face and feet, and embarrassment and humiliation.
As previously stated, the medical testimony explicitly fails to make any connection between the ailments claimed by Otis and any evidence that Otis suffered an electrical shock. SWEPCO denied that Otis received an electrical shock, but concluded that Otis received a minor flash burn to the right side of his face. This conclusion was based on statements made by Otis to SWEPCO, the testimony of experienced technicians, the medical record and observations of physicians. Otis's later complaints that they were the result of electrical shock were inconsistent and unsupported by the medical testimony.
As stated by the trial court, the testimony and medical evidence shows that Otis suffered a minor, first-de
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|