Negligence

March 15, 2012

Caddo Parish School Board Held Not Liable for Sexual Assault Involving Students

A school district can be like a parent as it takes care of students who are underage and needing supervision. That attention is greater when the student is more vulnerable. However, the school district’s duty is absolute but, instead, limited to those who are in the district’s custody, even when the incident is tragic. A sexual assault by one student against another 14-year-old student did not result in liability to the school district because the students had left the school bus and were outside of the school district’s control. ln BL v. Caddo Parish School Board (La. Ct. App. 2 Cir. 9/21/11), the court of appeal affirmed dismissal of the case by the First Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo.

KKG, the son of BL, had learning disabilities caused in part from his premature birth. His mother enrolled him in “special education classes” at Caddo Learning Center when he was 14. Both KKG and another student, LNG, rode on the same school bus. LNG had a record of disciplinary problems. School records noted 60 reported offenses.

On October 19, 2006, KKG and LNG were friendly. They normally got off the bus at the same stop, and that day they did. KKG went to LNG’s house to swap video games, but when they got to the house, LNG said he forgot that the games were at his aunt’s house. “On the walk to his aunt’s house, LNG threatened to hit KKG with a brick if he did not do as he was told. LNG then sexually assaulted KKG.” KKG ran to his grandmother’s house, where he reported the assault. DNA provided a positive match to LNG, who was adjudicated a delinquent in juvenile court.

February 21, 2012

Closing Overview of Class Action Certification for Chemical Leaks, Other Disasters

by Berniard Law Firm

In this, our final post of the Union Carbide/Dow Taft plant chemical leak series, we will consider the fifth requirement for class certification under Louisiana law: that the class is “defined objectively in terms of ascertainable criteria, such that the court may determine the constituency of the class for purposes of the conclusiveness of any judgment that may be rendered in the case.”Chalona v. La. Citizens Property Ins. Corp. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the class is not “amorphous, indeterminate, or vague,” such that any potential class members are challenged to determine whether they are actual members of the class. Plaintiffs initially submitted a class definition that included “[p]ersons throughout Louisiana” who were exposed to the ethyl acrylate that escaped the Taft plant and who suffered injury or loss as a result. The court desired a more precise definition, however. It reviewed the zip code maps, weather data, and expert testimony in evidence and incorporated Dr. Williams’s method in describing the symptoms suffered by people who were exposed to craft its own definition. This action on the court’s part was specifically permitted by Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Art. 592(A)(3)(c), which envisions that the court may, prior to a final decision on the merits, enlarge, restrict, or otherwise redefine the constituency of the class. The court determined that its sharpened definition would mean that members “only need to determine if they were present in the geographically defined area on July 7, 2009, and if so, whether they experienced any of the symptoms commonly associated with the offending chemicals released.” This meant, in the court’s view, that its ultimate ruling as to whether the chemical released by the Taft plant caused the Plaintiffs’ injuries and losses would resolve the claims of all class members.

The court summarized its conclusions by reiterating that the substantive issue that will control the outcome of the case is whether ethyl acrylate “in the amount released can cause the damages as alleged by plaintiffs. This issue, along with the legal issues of duty of the defendants to the class … will predominate.” Accordingly, the court held that the Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that certifying the class would not result in the action “degenerating into a series of individual trials.”

As we observed previously in the class certification litigation related to the Chalmette Refinery leak in 2007, the court’s task in determining whether to certify a class is an extraordinarily fact-intensive one. In many cases, the certification process is just as complex and involved as the trial on the merits of the ultimate issue. In fact, the class certification in the Taft plant case has not yet been finalized. Subsequent to the issuance of Judge Cade’s Order on December 15, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion to appeal the class certification.

February 19, 2012

The Third Part of Our Discussion Regarding the Anatomy of a Class Action Certification

by Berniard Law Firm

Following the prior discussion of numerosity and commonality, we will now examine the court’s analysis of typicality under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 591(A)(3). This prerequisite obligates the court to examine whether the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the entire class. The requirement is met if the claims of the class representatives arise out of the same “event, practice, or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and those claims are based on the same legal theory.” See Gudo v. Admins. of Tulane Educ. Fund.

The court reviewed the three putative class members presented by Plaintiffs. Ramona Alexander lived in Hahnville on the day of the chemical release. She testified that she smelled a strong odor in her home on the morning of July 7, 2009 which caused her to become sick and vomit. The odor also caused burning in her eyes, throat irritation, and shortness of breath. Vanessa Wilson lived in Waggaman on the day of the chemical release. She awoke to an odor that caused eye irritation, nausea, coughing, and a sore throat. Wilson testified that she traveled to Avondale that morning where the odor persisted; her symptoms worsened. She also received a panicked phone call from her mother who was being ordered to evacuate her home in St. Charles Parish. Upon arriving at her mother’s house, Wilson observed her mother vomiting and suffering from burning in her eyes. Melissa Berniard, who is a licensed attorney in Louisiana, testified that she was in her home in Orleans Parish on the morning of July 7. She awoke to a foul odor that suggested to her that something may have been burning; she soon experienced eye irritation, headache, nausea, and feelings of anxiety. Berniard traveled to Jefferson Parish later in the day and spoke with others who experienced similar symptoms. The court found that Wilson, Alexander, and Berniard all offered “typical complaints of the constituency of the class” that were corroborated by Dr. Williams’s analysis of numerous class members’ intake forms which captured their symptoms. Accordingly, the court concluded that the “issue of whether or not a release of ethyl acrylate can cause the damage alleged by the class representatives is common to all class members and is adequately represented.”

The court next considered whether the proposed class representatives are adequate under the Louisiana Code by referencing a definition adopted by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. In essence, the Fourth Circuit’s analysis of adequacy concerns whether the proposed representatives’ claims are “typical of” the claims of all class members and whether the damages asserted by the representatives are of the same type as the class as a whole. See Dupree v. Lafayette Ins. Co. The court noted that Wilson, Alexander, and Berniard all testified to being present in the defined geographical area on July 7, 2009, suffering from the type of symptoms that were common to the class, and being willing to serve as class representatives. Thus, the court held that the adequacy requirement was met with respect to the plaintiff representatives. The court also made a finding on a related matter that Plaintiffs’ counsel are “highly skilled attorneys with experience in class action litigation” and well qualified to serve as class counsel. The court expressed that it was “particularly impressed” with the attorneys’ presentation at the certification hearing, and felt that “there is no dispute as to the competency and the zealousness of class counsel.”

February 17, 2012

Second Part in Understanding the Anatomy of a Class Action Certification

by Berniard Law Firm

In our previous post, we began a discussion of the Union Carbide/Dow Chemical Taft plant chemical leak litigation filed by the Berniard Law Firm. This post continues with a review of the court’s analysis of numerosity in certifying a class. Under this requirement, the class must be so large that joinder of all members is impracticable. La. Code Civ. P. Art. 591(A)(1). Generally, a class action is favored when there are so many plaintiffs that individual suits would unduly burden the court, and so the class action would be more judicially expedient than other available procedures. See Cotton v. Gaylord Container. There is no distinct number of plaintiffs needed to fulfill the numerosity requirement. In this case, the proposed class included all the residents of St. Charles Parish as well as certain residents of Jefferson and Orleans Parishes–clearly a large number. The court found persuasive the fact that “the size of the individual claims of class members is small enough that individual lawsuits are impracticable,” but that that “separate suits would unduly burden the courts.” In the court’s view, a class action would “be more useful and judicially expedient.” Thus, the court concluded that “numerosity exists,” but that “the class is not too numerous to manage effectively.”

The court next examined the issue of commonality, or whether there were questions of law or fact common to the class. To satisfy the commonality requirement, there must exist “as to the totality of the issues a common nucleus of operative facts.” McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services. of La., Inc. A common question is one that, when resolved for one class member, is resolved for all members. This issue is closely related to the predominance requirement, where the common questions predominate over any individual issues not shared among the class members. The Louisiana Supreme Court has indicated that predominance “entails identifying the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assessing which issues will predominate, and then determining whether the issues are common to the class.” The goal is to “prevent[] the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials. Brooks v. Union Pacific R. Co. The same court has also held that a mass tort can only be brought as class action if it arose from one single cause or disaster; however, this requirement does not mean that the amount or extent of damages must be identical for all class members. “[V]arying degrees of damages … does not preclude class certification.” In order to meet the common cause requirement, each member of the class must be able to show individual causation based on the same set of facts and law that any other class member would use. See Bartlett v. Browning-Ferris Indus. Chem. Services, Inc.

With these considerations in mind, the court analyzed the common threads identified by the Plaintiffs as to their claims. First, all class members were physically located in the identified parishes on the date and time of the chemical release. They all suffered various (but similar) physical injuries and financial losses as a result of the release. Also, common questions of law and fact surrounded the Defendants’ negligence in failing to maintain its plant and prevent the chemical release. The court concluded that it was “satisfied … from the evidence presented that common factual issues predominate with regard to whether Defendants took reasonable steps to prevent the release of [ethyl acrylate] that occurred on July 7, 2009 and whether or not the release could cause the harm as alleged by the Plaintiffs to the members of the class.” The court’s reasoning was based in part on the testimony offered at the hearing by Dr. Patricia Williams, a toxicology expert. Dr. Williams concluded that the symptoms described by the class were consistent with the type of exposure to ethyl acrylate that resulted from the release at the Taft plant. Although the Defendants offered its own expert witness to rebut Dr. Williams’s testimony, the court nevertheless found that “a method of assessing general causation for the whole of the class exist[ed].” This permitted the court to reach the conclusion that common factual issues were present. The court thus identified a “common nucleus of operative facts” that permitted a finding that “uniform allegations of complaints of harm amongst the large number of class members that stem from one central release event” involved common legal issues among all members that superseded any individual concerns.

February 15, 2012

Anatomy of a Class Action Certification

by Berniard Law Firm

Early in the morning of July 7, 2009, a 640,000 gallon chemical storage tank at Union Carbide/Dow Chemical’s Taft plant began to rupture. The tank contained ethyl acrylate, a foul-smelling chemical used in making various products including industrial flavorings, fabric finishes, pigments and dyes, floor polishes, adhesives, and caulk. The substance is listed as a possible carcinogen by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and is known to cause a number of significant heath issues such as burning of the mucous membranes and eyes as well as respiratory irritation and nausea upon contact through the air. Westerly winds gusting as high as 20 miles per hour carried the chemical vapor into the neighboring communities. St. Charles Parish sheriff’s deputies began evacuating residents while officals from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality were summoned to perform air testing. Numerous residents in St. Charles Parish and surrounding parishes experienced extremely unpleasant physical symptoms as they came into contact with the chemical vapor.

The Berniard Law Firm filed a lawsuit on July 29, 2009 on behalf of those who suffered effects from the Taft plant chemical leak. On December 15, 2011, Judge Herbert Cade of the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans granted the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The class is defined as persons living or located in St. Charles Parish and certain areas of Orleans and Jefferson Parishes on July 7-8, 2009 who experienced “eyes, nose, or throat irritation, coughing, choking or gagging, or nausea, or headaches, dizziness, trouble breathing or other respiratory issues” as a result of their exposure to the ethyl acrylate that escaped the Taft facility. The court’s order contains an illustrative description of the process by which it analyzed the Plaintiffs’ argument for class certification, and an exploration of that analysis will serve as the basis for this and a series of subsequent blog posts.

Previously on this blog, we have examined the requirements for class certification in a federal case according to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Louisiana’s Code of Civil Procedure, in Article 591, sets forth a similar set of standards for certification. Specifically, a plaintiff who seeks to represent a class must show:

January 25, 2012

“Law of the Case” Doctrine, Part 2

by Berniard Law Firm

In our most recent post, we began a review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s application of the law of the case doctrine in a lawsuit that followed an auto accident in Vernon Parish. The plaintiffs, in opposing UUT’s motion for summary judgment, argued that UUT’s no-coverage arguments had previously been heard in a “peremptory exception of no right of action” filed by UUT which the trial court had denied. Both the Third Circuit and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs of appeal in that ruling; thus, the plaintiffs argued that the law of the case doctrine should “preclude UUT from re-litigating those same arguments” in the instant case. The plaintiffs also argued that the federal case cited by UUT offered “no precedential value in this state court action.” UUT’s reply asserted that the exceptions previously heard by the trial court “dealt with procedural, rather than substantive, matters,” and were not properly before the trial court at the exceptions hearing. In sum, UUT argued that the trial court’s rulings on the exceptions were interlocutory and therefore “subject to revision by the trial court at any time prior to rendition of final judgment.” The trial court granted UUT’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims based on the finding that there was no coverage under the UUT policy. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that UUT’s arguments had previously been heard and rejected in an earlier action (the peremptory exception) and therefore “the law of the case doctrine should have been applied because no new argument or evidence was produced by UUT.”

The Third Circuit concluded that UUT showed that “the policy it issued to Olympic did not provide coverage for the plaintiffs’ claims.” The truck Coronado wrecked was a vehicle leased from Olympic, and the UUT policy by its language excluded coverage for leased vehicles. Rather than refute UUT’s position on the merits, the plaintiffs simply “argued that the issue had already been litigated and that the trial court was bound to follow its earlier ruling.” The court rejected that the law of the case doctrine applied. It noted that UUT did not raise coverage issues when it filed its exceptions in the trial court. Instead, “the plaintiffs brought up the issue of coverage in their opposition to UUT’s exceptions.” In fact, UUT was not even made aware of the plaintiffs’ position on coverage until the day of the hearing. “Clearly,” the court concluded, “the issue of coverage under the UUT policy was not squarely before the trial court at the hearing on the exceptions.” In the view of the court, “[t]he issues raised in the motion for summary judgment filed by UUT … did not cause indefinite re-litigation of the same issue[s] as were raised in its [exceptions motion].” Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of UUT.

The Willis case is a stark reminder to litigants that the rules of civil procedure in Louisiana can be extremely complex. Even when the disputed issue in a case (such as whether an auto insurance policy covers a particular driver) is fairly straightforward, a plaintiff can face a complicated path to a resolution without the counsel of an experienced attorney.

January 23, 2012

Exploring the “Law of the Case” Doctrine in Vernon Parish Car Accident Litigation

by Berniard Law Firm

Under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, judgments are either interlocutory or final. A judgment that “determines the merits [of an issue] in whole or in part” is a final judgment, while a judgment that determines “only preliminary matters” is an interlocutory judgment. Generally speaking, final judgments can be appealed, but interlocutory judgments cannot unless there is a statutory exception that permits the appeal. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 2083. If a court renders a judgment that addresses fewer than all of the claims or that concerns fewer than all litigants in a case, that judgment is not final and may be revised by the court at any time prior to a final judgment. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B). With parallel reasoning, if a court of appeal denies a writ of appeal, thereby declining to exercise its supervisory oversight of a trial court, the court of appeal cannot affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment of the trial court. This means that “any language in the court of appeal’s … writ denial purporting to find no error in the trial court’s … ruling is without effect.” See Bulot v. Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc..

Related is the “law of the case doctrine.” This principle pertains to:

“(a) the binding force of trial court rulings during later stages of the trial, (b) the conclusive effects of appellate rulings at the trial on remand, and (c) the rule that an appellate court will ordinarily not reconsider its own rulings of law on a subsequent appeal in the same case.” Petition of Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans.

January 21, 2012

The Plaintiff’s Burden in Proving Special Damages

by Berniard Law Firm

Under Louisiana jurisprudence, special damages are the category of damages that can be “established to a reasonable mathematical certainty.” Myers v. Broussard. Special damages include awards for past and future lost earnings, since a plaintiff’s forgone income can be numerically calculated by the court. Given the relatively high level of precision, “when a trier of fact assesses special damages, the discretion is more limited or narrower than the discretion to assess general damages,” Eddy v. Litton, though the standard of review is still abuse of discretion. The plaintiff carries the burden to prove that he has suffered a loss of income to induce the court to award damages for lost wages in an amount that equals what the plaintiff would have likely earned if he had not been injured by the defendant and been able to work. In cases where there is “no basis for a precise mathematical calculation of the amount of lost earnings,” the trial court may award a “reasonable” amount of damages. However, “to allow a plaintiff to recover damages for lost wages in the absence of independent support is highly speculative.” Turner v. Cleveland Trust Co.

The Third Circuit recently considered an automobile collision case in which the plaintiff was awarded damages for lost wages by the trial court. Lori Johnson claimed that, due to the injuries she sustained when her car was struck from behind by David St. Romaine on Highway 1 in Marksville, she was unable to perform her part-time weekend work as a farrier (horse-shoer). The trial court awarded Johnson $7,200 for loss of income, which St. Romaine appealed. The Third Circuit reviewed the trial record containing Johnson’s testimony that she was unable support a horse’s weight on her injured shoulder and therefore could not install the shoes. She estimated that she typically earned between $400 and $750 per month, but was unsure of the exact amount because it was a cash business and she did not keep records. Johnson also admitted that she did not report her income from the farrier business to the IRS. The court concluded that, “[a]lthough the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff can support a lost wage award, based on the facts of this case, we find that Johnson’s testimony regarding the lost wage claim is insufficient.” In the court’s view, Johnson’s wage calculation was a mere “guesstimate” that could not support an award for foregone income. Thus, the court concluded that it was error for the trial court to award damages for lost wages based on only this speculative information, and reversed that part of the judgment.

This case reminds litigants that claims for special damages must be corroborated by some minimum amount proof. Although the court allows that a plaintiff’s testimony alone can in some cases support a special damages award, the facts of each situation will weigh heavily on the court’s decision process. Clearly, here, the Third Circuit did not approve of the trial court’s treatment of Johnson’s claim for wages, perhaps particularly because Johnson did not report her income as taxable.

January 19, 2012

Third Circuit Rejects Trial Court’s Apportionment of Fault in Lafayette Auto Accident

by Berniard Law Firm

It is well settled in Louisiana jurisprudence that an appellate court’s review of a trial court’s apportionment of fault in a negligence action is subject to the manifest error standard. In other words, in order for an appellate court to overturn a trial court’s assessment of fault, it must conclude that no reasonable factual basis exists to support the trial court’s finding and that it is clearly wrong. The Third Circuit reached this conclusion in Thibodeaux v. Trahan, a recent case that was marked by witness testimony that was “externally conflicting and often internally inconsistent.”

On the afternoon of October 18, 2006, Melinda Trahan was driving a school bus owned by the Lafayette Parish School Board on Richfield Road in Duson. Harold Thibodeaux, driving an RV, pulled out from a side road in front of Trahan’s bus and made a quick left turn into the parking lot of Thib’s Corner, a grocery store. Trahan, who approached Thibodeaux’s RV from the rear, also turned her bus into Thib’s Corner, at which point the two vehicles collided. Thibodeaux suffered a knee injury in the collision and sued Trahan and the school board for damages. The trial court heard testimony from the parties as well as several witnesses and ultimately found both Trahan and Thibodeaux at fault for the accident. It awarded Thibodeaux damages for pain and suffering and medical expenses, but reduced the amount by 40 percent, the amount of his fault. Thibodeaux appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding him partially at fault for the accident. On appeal, the Third Circuit noted that “the trial court was left with numerous conflicting versions of how the accident occurred.” It did, however, make specific findings of fact. Specifically, the trial court found Thibodeaux at fault “for having pulled out in front of Ms. Trahan while driving an RV in the rain while she was driving a school bus.” It concluded Trahan was at fault because she should have maintained better control of her bus when she saw Thibodeaux’s RV pull out into her path. The Third Circuit reviewed the testimony from the record and arrived at a different explanation of how the collision occurred: it concluded that Thibodeaux did nothing wrong when he pulled onto Richfield Road from the side street, but that he “failed to ascertain that the left turn could be made with reasonable safety” and therefore breached his statutory duty to execute the turn properly. Still, the court concluded that “the majority of the fault in this instance should be allocated to Ms. Trahan,” as she “was in a better position, as the following vehicle, to prevent the accident from happening.” The court concluded that the accident would have been avoided if Trahan had stopped her bus “within the adequate stopping distance existing between her and the RV,” rather than being forced to take an evasive turn into the Thib’s Corner parking lot. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s apportionment and assessed 80 percent of the fault to Trahan and 20 percent to Thibodeaux.

January 17, 2012

Third Circuit Reverses Trial Court in Rare Finding of Abuse of Discretion in Med Mal Action

by Berniard Law Firm

In a medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff faces a three-part evidentiary burden. First, she must present evidence to establish the applicable standard of care. Next, she must show that a breach of that standard of care occurred. Finally, she must demonstrate a link between that breach and the injury that resulted. In nearly all cases, the opinion of a medical expert is an essential element of the required evidence. Without a qualified medical expert’s opinion, the plaintiff risks losing at summary judgment due to a lack of material issues of fact to be determined at trial. The availability of an expert’s opinion was at the center of the recent case in the Third Circuit, Dupree v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co.

Katie Dupree became a patient of Dr. Jose Dorta, an OB/GYN specialist, in 2008 when she was pregnant. On January 9, 2009, Dupree went to the ER at Opelousas General Hospital with facial swelling, vomiting, and a severe headache. She was told to stop working and rest at home due to elevated blood pressure. Two weeks later, Dupree again went to the ER with elevated blood pressure and other symptoms that suggested pregnancy complications. Dr. Dorta did nothing to treat these issues and did not suggest an early delivery of Dupree’s baby. In fact, Dr. Dorta merely sent Dupree home with the suggestion of bed rest. Two days later, Dupree was found face down and unconscious. Tragically, her baby was stillborn the following day, at which point Dupree was then taken off life support and died. Dupree’s parents requested review by a Medical Review Panel in June 25, 2009. The panel rendered its finding of no malpractice on Dr. Dorta’s part on May 12, 2010. Sixteen days later, Dupree’s parents filed suit against Dr. Dorta and his medical malpractice insurance carrier, Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. After overcoming a series of exceptions filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs requested a status conference to schedule a trial date. Immediately thereafter, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial judge granted the defendants’ motion based on the plaintiffs’ “failure to submit an affidavit from an expert showing a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” At the hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that he had obtained an expert but did not submit an affidavit because the trial scheduling order called for expert reports to be exchanged several months later. The trial court disregarded this argument. It then denied the plaintiffs’ request for a new trial after they produced an affidavit from Dr. James Tappan, a board certified physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal, mindful that a “trial court is imbued with great discretion in both pre-trial and post-trial matters,” ultimately concluded the this denial of a new trial was an abuse of that discretion. “[T]he Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides that a ‘new trial may be granted in any case if there is good ground therefor, except as otherwise provided by law,’” the court reasoned, and “after reviewing the record before us, we find good and valid reasons for a new trial.” Namely, Dr. Tappan’s affidavit included “three specific acts of medical negligence … : failure to diagnose, failure to warn, and failure to timely deliver the baby.” The court noted that Dr. Tappan reported that “Dr. Dorta failed to warn Ms. Dupree and/or her family of her condition and what to look for with respect to further symptoms,” which was at odds with the Medical Review Panel’s finding that “we are sure a lengthy discussion ensued” when Dupree sought treatment. These conflicting views presented a genuine issue of material fact. Yet, the trial court “ruled on the motion for new trial without reference to the affidavit, choosing to rely instead on the fact that plaintiffs failed to take advantage of their one opportunity to present evidence.” Being careful not to “condone or legitimize the actions of plaintiffs’ counsel in failing to timely file an expert affidavit,” the court concluded that “the facts, the law, and plaintiffs’ prudence and initiative in prosecuting this case compel a finding of an abuse of discretion by the trial court,” and reversed the denial of a new trial.