Hamilton v. Walker

893 So. 2d 1002 (2005)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hamilton v. Walker

Louisiana Court of Appeal
893 So. 2d 1002 (2005)

Facts

On October 22, 1999, a vehicle driven by Charles Walker (defendant) collided with a vehicle driven by Bonnie Hamilton (plaintiff) at an intersection. Hamilton asserted that she had a green light to cross at the intersection. An investigating police officer made a report of the accident and did not issue any citations. Hamilton subsequently sued Walker and Walker’s insurance company to recover for injuries she allegedly sustained in the accident. The trial court held a bench trial and considered evidence including the accident report, Hamilton’s testimony, deposition testimony from Hamilton’s treating physician, and deposition testimony from Walker. During Walker’s deposition, Walker testified that traffic approaching the intersection had a green light. However, Walker also testified that after the accident, he got out of his vehicle and accused Hamilton of running a red light. According to Walker’s testimony, Hamilton did not respond to Walker’s accusation. However, there was no evidence at trial suggesting that Hamilton even heard the accusation. Furthermore, neither party questioned Hamilton during the trial about her lack of response to Walker’s accusation, and neither party mentioned Hamilton’s lack of response to the accusation during closing arguments. After considering the evidence, the trial court found Walker 100 percent at fault for the collision and awarded damages to Hamilton. Walker and his insurer appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal. Walker argued that Hamilton’s failure to deny the allegation that she ran the red light was an adoptive admission that supported finding Hamilton liable for the collision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Saunders, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership