Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Charles v. Durand
Citations: 442 So. 2d 916; 1983 La. App. LEXIS 9836Docket: No. 83-674
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; December 13, 1983; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
A tort action was initiated by Steven Charles, as administrator of his deceased minor child Racquel Charles, against Ronald Durand, administrator of his minor daughter Michelle Durand, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, following an automobile accident on May 2, 1981, in New Iberia, Louisiana. The accident involved Racquel, a backseat passenger in a Chevrolet driven by Nolton George, Jr., which was rear-ended by a Volkswagen driven by Michelle Durand. Following the accident, Racquel exhibited complaints of leg pain and was examined by Dr. Kelly Nations at Charity Hospital on May 18, 1981. Dr. Nations found no objective signs of injury and discharged her. Subsequently, Dr. Boring Montgomery examined Racquel on May 26, 1981, and diagnosed her with a contusion and sprained ankle after observing a limp and pain in her right calf. He treated her through November 16, 1981, at which point he declared her fully recovered. At trial, the plaintiff presented Dr. Montgomery's deposition and testimonies from Racquel's mother and grandmother regarding her ongoing pain and incidents of falling. In contrast, the defendants relied on Dr. Nations' deposition, which supported that the lack of immediate injury signs indicated no significant damage from the accident. The trial judge ruled in favor of the defendants without providing written reasons. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court’s ruling was manifestly erroneous, particularly regarding causation, which is a factual determination given deference. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, concluding that it was not clearly wrong in attributing Racquel's injuries as unrelated to the accident. The court affirmed the ruling, with all appeal costs assessed against the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not seek damages in his individual capacity.