Case Name: Eura DUFRENE, Appellant, v. INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1962-05-17
Citations: 303 F.2d 788
Docket Number: No. 18950
Parties: Eura DUFRENE, Appellant, v. INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 303
Pages: 788–791

Head Matter:
Eura DUFRENE, Appellant, v. INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellee.
No. 18950.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
May 17, 1962.
Edward C. Alker, New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Charles Kohlmeyer, Jr., and Lemle & Kelleher, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before RIVES, CAMERON and BELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Eura Dufrene sustained serious injuries while working for B. T. Ritchie when the boom of a crane upon which appellant was employed collapsed and fell upon him. He made claim against his employer and has, since the time of his accident, been paid under the Workmen's Compensation Laws of Louisiana (LSA-R.S. 23:1021 et seq.). This action was brought by appellant against appellee Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, the insurance carrier of the manufacturer of the boom, based upon his claim that the boom was defective in design or manufacture. His case was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict against him and in favor of appellee. Appellant's chief attack upon the actions of the court below is based upon his contention that error was committed in the rulings of the trial court upon the testimony given by the experts relied upon by the respective parties.
The trial below developed largely into a battle between the experts. We do not find that the court below erred in admitting and rejecting their testimony. On the other hand, a careful examination of its rulings leads us to the conclusion that no such errors were committed as claimed by the appellant. Moreover, the handling of such minutiae of the trial was committed largely to the discretion of the trial judge.
It is clear that appellant's chief complaint is that the jury accepted appellee's expert testimony over that of appellant. This Court has consistently left to trial courts the choice as to which set of experts will be credited. Swift & Co. v. Morgan and Sturdivant, 5 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 115, 49 A.L.R.2d 924; New York Life Insurance Co. v. Johnston, 5 Cir., 1958, 256 F.2d 115; and Shofner v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 5 Cir., 1962, 300 F.2d 188.
The case was fairly and fully presented to the jury by the court below and, under the scope of review of such cases uniformly followed by this court, cf. Greyhound Corporation v. Dewey, 5 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 899, we feel that the judgment entered upon the jury's findings should be and it is
Affirmed.