Bertha Lockett VS Carla Hartenstine, Ernest E. Hartenstine, State Farm Insurance Company and Progressive Security Insurance Company
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 CA 1633 BERTHA LOCKElT VERSUS nil A 7 CARLA HARTENSTINE ERNEST E HARTENSTINE STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY AND PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY cJ On 1 Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Docket No 543 535 Section 22 Honorable Charles V Baton Timothy E Kelley Judge Presiding Attorneys for Plaintiff Appellant Taylor Rouge LA Bertha Lockett and Johnnie L Matthews Baton Rouge LA Katherine M LaPorte Terry J Butcher and Associates Baton Rouge LA Attorney for Defendants Appellees Carla Hartenstine and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance BEFORE PARRO Company McCLENDON AND WELCH JJ Judgment rendered JUN 1 9 2009 J PARRO Bertha Lockett appeals Hartenstine and her insurer State Farm car based accident were roadway November Lockett and the on not at fault in the personal injury and property damage claims s judgment and issue this opinion in accordance with 2005 14 a two car accident occurred on premises of the Mall of Louisiana in Baton Rouge a vehicle the driver of was was heading into the mall a vehicle in the going on the two lane entrance roadway and Ms opposite direction leaving the mall At some point sideswiped each other resulting in scratches along the driver s side of cars Ms Lockett an Ms Hartenstine approaching Ms Hartenstine in the other lane of that roadway the two Company Appeal Rule 2 16 1 B the driver of was Lockett We affirm the Uniform Court of On State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance jury s finding that Ms Hartenstine which Ms on based on a judgment dismissing her claims against Carla a Jaguar Ms Hartenstine s not s car was damaged Ms Lockett sued for property damages and for personal injuries she attributed to the accident Both Ms parties testified at a Hartenstine stated that Ms miles per hour and was jury trial concerning how the accident happened Lockett partially over was the coming toward her at about 25 30 yellow dividing line into her lane of travel when the contact occurred She tried to avoid the accident the completely avoid making contact with Ms Lockett s right but was unable to Ms Lockett stated she had slowed in of her she denied occurred H i n the a curve to allow some by turning her wheel people to cross in hurry and that she was was right lane that I looking for not in a hurry a was H in manner have a on However paying attention and park There in which the accident occurred bearing front She also said that Ms Hartenstine had parking place was location where she intended to the car moving into the opposite lane of travel and said the impact repeatedly apologized to her stating that she had not been paying attention a to this issue consisted of were no The in Ms Hartenstine testified was nowhere near other witnesses the store concerning only other evidence that might photographs of the 2 was two vehicles showing scratches all along the driver Ms Hartenstine side of Ms s Lockett accident occurred their s A a very as jury obviously accepted they unanimously found she judgment incorporating the jury verdict Ms Lockett contends in this manifestly erroneous or appeal that the jury s finding clearly wrong and that shows the trier of fact reached an was not unreasonable conclusion on Through Dep t of Transp So 2d 957 962 and 456 The two writs denied whether there is whether a the by the trier of fact is Dev 96 0688 v Hill 505 SO 2d 1120 that 1127 necessary to conclude there an was manifest appellate court may in its reviewing the record wrong See Stobart 882 1993 v State entirety the 95 State Where two error set aside a factual However if not 1 manifestly if there is additional a 686 692 So 2d 455 Thus no v jury s finding and no inquiry is reasonable factual jury s factual finding only if after jury s finding through Dep t of Transp and Dev Dept of Transp and Dev a factual finding is 1987 it determines the Where there is conflict in the was clearly 617 SO 2d 880 testimony reasonable evaluations of not be disturbed upon review 03 1767 La 2 25 04 869 So 2d 87 permissible views of the evidence exist the fact finder s choice between them cannot be Baton a finding is jury s finding credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should v La 4 18 97 La entirety Barsavage error reasonable factual basis in the record for the establishes was App 1st Cir 12 20 96 part test for the appellate review of reasonable factual basis in the record for the basis exists La 97 0595 and 97 0634 record further Mart erroneous Lockett April the issue of fault finding and cannot be overturned in the absence of manifest La on reasonable review of the record in its a A determination of the allocation of fault 2 signed was not at was dismissing Ms Lockett s claims against Ms Hartenstine and State Farm 2008 State at all to damage good description of how the The descriptions clearly differed version of the facts fault in the accident 10 no s car Basically although neither witness gave Ms Hartenstine and s car manifestly erroneous or Rouge 02 0682 La App 1st Cir 3 28 03 3 clearly wrong Williams 844 So 2d 360 366 v City of Having reviewed the record that Ms Hartenstine of the version permissible erroneous such factual the Nor does our or error jury s choice between them admissions in the jury s finding Either in Lockett her s cannot be manifestly support Ms Lockett s argument during her testimony testimony Ms There Hartenstine vehicle does not constitute an s on are no factual admission legally at fault in striking the vehicle Accordingly claims manifest resulting in the accident is reasonable and review of the record admission that she struck Ms was no causing the accident sued upon Hartenstine conceded fault concessions that she find at fault in situation Therefore that Ms appeal was not we we affirm the judgment that dismissed all of Ms against Ms Hartenstine and State Farm Lockett and issue this assess all costs of this Lockett s appeal to Ms opinion in accordance with Uniform Court of Appeal Rule 2 16 1 B AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
