# Johnson v. Morehouse General Hospital

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · May 10, 2011 · 63 So. 3d 87

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4865654

## Case

- **Full name:** Jonathon JOHNSON and Belinda Johnson, individually and on behalf of their minor Son, Garrett Johnson v. MOREHOUSE GENERAL HOSPITAL
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** May 10, 2011
- **Citations:** 63 So. 3d 87; 2011 La. LEXIS 1117; 2011 WL 1759932
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Guidry
- **Judges:** Ciaccio, Guidry, Johnson, Knoll, Reasons, Victory
- **Cited by:** 47 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/4865654

## Opinion text

GUIDRY, Justice,
dissents with reasons.
hi respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Under the manifest error standard of review, the appellate court is not to substitute its opinion for that of the jury. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous. S.J. v. Lafayette Parish School Bd., 09-2195, p. 12 (La.7/6/10), 41 So.3d 1119, 1127 . The credibility determinations of the trier of fact are subject to the strictest deference under the manifest error — clearly wrong standard. Id. at 4, 41 So.3d at 1128 .
In this case, the jury’s findings were based on credibility determinations and supported by permissible views of the evidence. Although Dr. Ziegler’s credibility was at issue, his testimony that he would have delivered the baby on the night of November 3, 1999, if he had been given the relevant test results, was not contradicted. The jury considered all of the evidence presented and decided that More-house had fallen below the applicable standard of care in several respects, that the hospital’s failings caused or contributed to the plaintiffs’ injuries, and that Dr. ^Ziegler’s negligence was not a superced-ing cause of those injuries.
Under the manifest error standard of review, the jury’s determinations in this case are not clearly wrong. Accordingly, the court of appeal decision should be reversed and the jury verdict reinstated.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4865654. Public record. Not legal advice.