Case ID: so2d_789/html/0566-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KNOLL, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donna HEBERT, Individually and on Behalf of her Minor Son Trevor Hebert v. AMERICAN CENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Bolinde & Son Company, Inc. d/b/a Baton Rouge Beer Agency, and Bobby Magee. Chad Dougherty, as Natural Father of His Minor Son Trevor Hebert v. American Central Insurance Company, et al.
    No. 2001-CC-1674.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    June 11, 2001.
   In re Hebert, Donna et al; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, Nos. 442,-526, 448,908; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 CW 1142.

Writ Denied.

KNOLL, J., dissents from denial, would grant the writ and assigns reasons.

CALOGERO, C.J., would grant the writ.

KNOLL, Justice,

dissenting.

For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority and find that allowing opinion testimony from a police officer as to the cause of this accident is improper. Unless a police officer is qualified as an accident reconstruction expert, I believe that his testimony should be limited to the physical condition of the accident scene including any measurements, pictures, interviews, and any other facts and recollections pertaining to the scene of the accident. See Fontenot v. Cooper, 599 So.2d 883, 885-86 (La.App. 3d Cir.1992); Jaffarzad v. Jones Truck Lines, Inc., 561 So.2d 144 (La.App. 3d Cir.), unit denied, 565 So.2d 450 (La.1990). In my view, allowing the police officer to give an opinion based on his findings is improper as he is not qualified to do so and is highly prejudicial.