Opinion

Wild v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals

  • 2008 La.App. 1 Cir. 1056
  • 7 So. 3d 1
  • 2008 La. App. LEXIS 1745
  • 2008 WL 5351678
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
Dec 23, 2008
Status
Published
Author
Downing
On the bench
Carter, Whipple, Downing
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.7%

negligent entrustment cannot be sustained on age alone, even with evidence underage driver had recently been in an accident and received numerous citations

How later courts described this case

  • negligent entrustment cannot be sustained on age alone, even with evidence underage driver had recently been in an accident and received numerous citations

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DOWNING, J,

concurs and assigns reasons.

hi agree with the result and generally agree with the analysis. I write to address a misstatement regarding the applicable standard of review. In St. Martinville, L.L.C. v. Louisiana Tax Com’n, 05-0457, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/10/05), 917 So.2d 38, 41-42 , and its predecessors, this court explained why an appellate court must give deference to a trial court’s factual findings in an administrative review pursuant to the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act, La. R.S. 49:964, as follows:

The Louisiana legislature enacted Acts 1997, No. 128, § 1, effective June 12, 1997, to amend paragraph G(6) to make the trial court a fact finder who weighs the evidence and makes its own conclusions of fact by preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we “defer to the trial court’s factual determinations and use a manifest error standard of review where the legislature has empowered it with the function of fact finding,” while giving due deference to the agency’s credibility determinations. La. R.S. 49:964 G(6). (Citations omitted.)

See also Lirette v. City of Baton Rouge, 05-1929, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/06), 945 So.2d 40, 44 , writ denied, 06-2659 (La.1/8/07), 948 So.2d 129 .

Even so, the majority concurs with the trial court’s factual determinations. Specifically, it concluded that the district court did not err in reversing the ALJ’s decision to uphold LDHH’s ineligibility determination. I fully agree, therefore, with the result reached by the majority and with the analysis except insofar as stated here.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.