Case Name: Josie V. JOHNSON v. John MORRIS, New Orleans Public Service, Inc., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1983-04-04
Citations: 431 So. 2d 429
Docket Number: No. CA 0267
Parties: Josie V. JOHNSON v. John MORRIS, New Orleans Public Service, Inc., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Judges: Before CIACCIO, BYRNES and LOBRA-NO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 431
Pages: 429–432

Head Matter:
Josie V. JOHNSON v. John MORRIS, New Orleans Public Service, Inc., and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
No. CA 0267.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
April 4, 1983.
Rehearing Denied May 24, 1983.
Singerman, Consentino, Toups & Troyer, Olden C. Toups, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Floyd F. Greene, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
Before CIACCIO, BYRNES and LOBRA-NO, JJ.

Opinion:
CIACCIO, Judge.
This appeal arises from an accident on August 28, 1977, in which appellant, Josie Johnson, tripped and fell on a raised portion of a sidewalk. Suit was filed on August 24, 1978, against Mr. John Morris, the owner of the lot through which the sidewalk passed, his insurer USF & G and New Orleans Public Service Inc. (hereinafter NOPSI). The City of New Orleans was made a third party defendant by Morris on June 6, 1979. The City in turn made NOPSI a third party defendant and, on September 14, 1979, Johnson added the City as a party defendant in the main demand.
Prior to trial Morris and USF & G were dismissed by summary judgment. On October 7, 1981, a judgment totaling $60,299.99 was rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the City of New Orleans. That judgment also dismissed plaintiff's suit against NOPSI and all third party demands.
On October 9, 1981, the City filed an exception of prescription. On October 14, 1981, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial arguing that NOPSI should not have been dismissed and that NOPSI and the City should be cast as joint tortfeasors. The City also filed a motion for a new trial on October 14, 1981, claiming the judgment was contrary to the law and evidence. The trial court held a hearing on November 13, 1981, and rendered a judgment on November 17, 1981, denying the motion for a new trial and maintaining the City's exception of prescription and dismissing plaintiff's suit.
Plaintiff has appealed the judgment dismissing her suit against NOPSI and the judgment of November 17th denying her motion for new trial and granting the City's exception of prescription.
In her brief, appellant frames the issue on appeal as follows: "The sole issue before this Honorable Court is whether or not the Trial Court erred in its finding that New Orleans Public Service, Inc.'s equipment did not cause or contribute to the defect in the sidewalk in question." In his reasons for judgment the trial judge stated; "Plaintiff's injuries were caused by a defect in the sidewalk, which was likely to cause injury, and which could not, with the exercise of reasonable care, be avoided, obscured as it was by the shadow of the light standard. The City is liable." He further stated that, "There is no persuasive evidence that NOP-SI's transformer caused or contributed to the defect."
Appellant's position is that the defect which caused her fall was a one inch settling of a section of the sidewalk. She maintains that this settling was caused by a NOPSI transformer housed below the sidewalk. Most of the testimony on this issue centered around witnesses who testified as to the placement of the transformer below the concrete. Access to the transformer is provided by a thirty-six inch diameter cast iron grate. It was alleged by appellant that the weight of the transformer and the grate, coupled with water seepage caused by the installation of the transformer, caused the sidewalk to settle, thus rendering it defective. The trial judge, who had the opportunity to evaluate the testimony of the various witnesses concluded that appellant had not sustained her burden of proof on the issue of NOPSI's liability. Absent manifest error, this court will not disturb the trial court's findings. Arceneaux v. Dominque, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978). Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973). We have reviewed the record and, although there is some conflict among the various experts who testified, we cannot say the trial judge was manifestly erroneous in concluding that NOPSI's transformer did not cause the sidewalk to settle.
Appellant further contends that the denial of her motion for a new trial was erroneous. That motion was based on appellant's assertion that the judgment dismissing NOPSI was contrary to the law and evidence. Having affirmed the finding of no liability on the part of NOPSI it follows that denial of a new trial on the grounds asserted by appellant was also proper. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing plaintiffs suit against NOPSI as well as the denial of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
AFFIRMED.
LOBRANO, J., concurring with reasons.
BYRNES, J., dissenting with reasons.