Young v. Clement
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 31, 1916 13 Tiess. 90; La., July 1, 1880 1 Mann. Unrep. Cas. 89; La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., December 10, 1974 304 So. 2d 730; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., November 16, 1965 180 So. 2d 758
Young v. Clement, 359 So. 2d 1070 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978).
Cited by
- Hutson v. Madison Parish Police Jury 496 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
- Young v. Clement 367 So. 2d 828 La. 1979
- Young v. Clement 362 So. 2d 798 La. 1978
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Martin v. Authement 28 So. 2d 469
Opinion text
WATSON, Judge. In this malpractice action, the dispositive issues are: (1) whether plaintiffs’ claims have prescribed; and (2) whether the trial judge erred in failing to grant a new trial. The prescription issue was resolved on the basis of factual determinations by the trial court against the plaintiffs. There is a reasonable evidentiary basis in the record for the findings of the trial court and, therefore, there is no manifest error. As to the denial of the motion for new trial, plaintiffs contend that the trial judge erred in failing to grant a new trial on the basis of three affidavits from persons who would give testimony tending to impeach the testimony of Dr. Richard J. Clement, one of the defendants. The trial judge in his reasons for denying the motion noted that not only did he entertain doubt that the evidence could not have been discovered either before or during trial, but also he thought that the “newly discovered” testimony was not relevant or material. The rule is that a new trial will not be granted for newly discovered evidence which is not material to the issues of the case and only has a tendency to discredit or impeach a witness. Martin v. Authement, 28 So.2d 469 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1947). The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed against plaintiffs. AFFIRMED.