Opinion ID: 1803793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Involved in or Causing Any Accident

Text: In the instant case, regarding the first element contained within LSA-R.S. 14:100, defendant argues that the evidence submitted at trial does not indicate that he was involved in the accident because there was no contact between his vehicle and Miss Morphis' vehicle. Wayne George, the driver of the chip truck which collided with Miss Morphis' vehicle, testified that he did not witness any contact between defendant's vehicle and Miss Morphis' vehicle. Additionally, Louisiana State Trooper Tracy Howard, who investigated the accident, testified that he examined Miss Morphis' vehicle post-collision, and there was no indication that there was any contact between her vehicle and defendant's. Defendant urges that, not only was he not involved in the accident, but he did not cause the accident, as he was within his lane of travel when he began his left turn. Instead, he argues that Miss Morphis caused the accident by straying from her lane of travel. In his statement to police the day after the accident, defendant stated that Miss Morphis' car was about two feet left of center. Similarly, during the trial, defendant testified that Miss Morphis' vehicle was in his lane, and he swerved to avoid a collision. Mr. George, the only other eyewitness to the accident, also gave a written statement to police officers, in which he asserted that defendant's car was about a half a car width over the center line when Miss Morphis' car came over the hill. He stated that Miss Morphis swerved to the right to miss [defendant's] car, and she collided with his 18-wheeler as she tried to correct her swerve. Similarly, during the trial, Mr. George testified as follows: I was southbound on 459 and I just got past the gravel pits. There was a car behind me and the next thing I knew the car had passed me. It was a black car that passed me going up the hill. After he passed me, he put on his brakes and turn signal and attempted a left-hand turn. And he was across the center line. And at about the same time, there was a white car topped the hill going north. And it swerved to the  well, it would've been to their right and went in the ditch to miss him and when she corrected to come out of the ditch, well, she crossed all the way across the highway and hit my truck. (Emphasis added). According to Mr. George, defendant's black vehicle was about halfway across the centerline; and half of his car would've been in the north bound lane, half in the south bound lane. A determination of credibility lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and like all questions of fact, is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless clearly contrary to the evidence. State v. Vigne, 01-2940 (La.6/21/02), 820 So.2d 533, 539; State v. Vessell, 450 So.2d 938, 943 (La.1984). In this case, the trial court was faced with conflicting testimony: the self-serving testimony of defendant, as well as the testimony of Mr. George. After hearing the testimony and viewing the demeanor of the witnesses, the trial court clearly believed Mr. George's version of the events. The trial court stated, The Court believes the testimony of Mr. Wayne George. I accept his testimony as being truthful, reliable and trustworthy. After reviewing the testimony, we find that there is no indication in the record that would support a finding that the trial court's determination is clearly contrary to the evidence. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in concluding that defendant caused the accident.