# McCarter c. Lawton

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · July 21, 2010 · 2009 La.App. 4 Cir. 1508

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4859677

## Case

- **Full name:** Mr. and Mrs. Richard T. McCARTER v. Dr. Andrew William LAWTON
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** July 21, 2010
- **Citations:** 2009 La.App. 4 Cir. 1508; 44 So. 3d 342; 2010 La. App. LEXIS 1063; 2010 WL 2858608
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Love
- **Judges:** Bonin, Gorbaty, Love
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4859677

## Opinion text

LOVE, J.,
Concurs in the Result.
hi concur in the majority result. I write separately to emphasize that while Mr. McCarter urged that a deviation from the standard of care was evident in the matter stib judice, the record reflects that the jury gave greater weight to contrary expert opinions.
Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 845 (La.1989). Thus, this Court may not substitute another factual conclusion for the jury’s determination, and to do otherwise would usurp the role of the jury and substitute my view of the facts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4859677. Public record. Not legal advice.