# Harvey ex rel. Bates v. T.H.E. Insurance

> Louisiana Court of Appeal · June 28, 2000 · 99 La.App. 3 Cir. 1440

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7734016

## Case

- **Full name:** John HARVEY on Behalf of his Minor Child Veda BATES and Robert and Josie Major v. T.H.E. INSURANCE COMPANY, D'Heilly and Sons Rides, Inc. and Jerry Lightfoot
- **Court:** Louisiana Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** June 28, 2000
- **Citations:** 99 La.App. 3 Cir. 1440; 764 So. 2d 354; 2000 La. App. LEXIS 1723; 2000 WL 862821
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Amy
- **Judges:** Amy, Colombaro, Doucet, Saunders, Thibodeaux
- **Cited by:** 2 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/7734016

## Opinion text

I,AMY, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, an affirmation is required. The question, drawn as fine as the majority has done, is particularized for the circumstances of the case and necessarily involves a number of factual determinations. So, in my view, the case is properly reviewed under the manifest error rule rather than a legal error analysis. In this light, I do not conclude that the circumstances involved here necessarily require a determination that the operator breached a duty owed. Absent this type of clear error, I do not find that a reversal of the trial court’s judgment is warranted.
For these reasons I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7734016. Public record. Not legal advice.