 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
LeBlanc v. Baxter5/31/2005
Panel composed of Judges James L. Cannella, Thomas F. Daley, and Walter J. Rothschild
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
Defendant, the Parish of Jefferson (the Parish), appeals from a judgment in an automobile accident case in favor of the Plaintiff, Cynthia LeBlanc. We affirm and remand.
On July 21, 2000, at approximately 3:15 p.m., the Plaintiff's Ford cargo van was struck by a Chevrolet Blazer driven by Thomas Baxter, III (Baxter) as she crossed the intersection of Derbigny Street and Fourth Street (La. 18) in Gretna, Louisiana. The Plaintiff was driving North on Derbigny toward the Mississippi River, while Baxter was traveling East on Fourth Street. Baxter was in the course and scope of his employment with the Parish as the Supervisor of Code Enforcement. In the collision, Baxter's car hit the van on the left rear, flipping it onto its side. The Plaintiff was taken to the West Jefferson Medical Center emergency room for injuries to her neck, chest, and back, a fractured shoulder, concussion, multiple bruises, and contusions.
On December 11, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a petition for damages against Baxter, and his insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). She later added Clarendon American Insurance Co., her uninsured/ underinsured carrier, and the Parish. The claims against Baxter personally, State Farm, and Clarendon were dismissed in 2003. The claim against the Parish was tried by a judge on June 14 and June 16, 2004. Judgment was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff on September 28, 2004, awarding the Plaintiff $215,000 in general damages, $18,930.50 in special damages and costs.
On appeal, the Parish contends that the trial judge erred in qualifying Wayne Winkler (Winkler) as the Plaintiff's expert on fault, in basing her finding of liability on the deposition testimony of Michael Timmons (Timmons), and in finding the Parish liable. The Parish further contends that the trial judge erred in awarding future medical benefits to the Plaintiff, in failing to order the establishment of a reversionary trust for future medicals, in awarding $215,000 in general damages, in ordering the Parish to pay court costs without specifying the amount, and in failing to consider the Parish's post-trial memorandum.
EXPERT TESTIMONY
The Parish challenges thequalification of Winkler as an expert in accident reconstruction and accident investigation. It asserts that the trial judge erred in attempting to qualify Winkler before defense counsel cross-examined him on his qualifications. The Parish further argues that the trial judge erred in allowing the Plaintiff to rehabilitate Winkler. The Parish contends that there was no testimony showing Winkler was qualified or that the underlying reasoning or methodology employed by him was valid and could be properly applied to the facts herein, and notes that Winkler was found unqualified by a court in the 19th Judicial District. It also contends that Winkler does not possess a college degree, and that Winkler's testimony as to speed is not relevant because both parties claimed to have the green light and the right of way. In addition, the Parish contends that if Winkler is qualified, his conclusions were speculative and mere conjecture because they were based on inaccurate and incomplete information and required the arbitrary assignment of a reaction time, drag co-efficient, speed of the vehicles and length and starting point of Baxter's skid marks.
Admissibility of expert testimony in Louisiana is governed by La.C.E. art. 702, which provides as follows:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of act to understand the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|