NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PARRO, J.

In this appeal, a defendant automobile liability insurer appeals from a judgment awarding damages to a plaintiff injured in an automobile accident. The judgment is based on the trial court's assessment of 50% fault to the insurer's policyholder in causing the accident in which that plaintiff was injured. We affirm the judgment and issue this opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(8).

The following facts are taken from the evidence introduced by the parties at the trial. On the afternoon of February 6, 2007, a two-car accident occurred in the intersection of Florida Boulevard and Windsor Drive, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Florida Boulevard is an east-west, four-lane thoroughfare divided by a median and is bounded by service roads to the north and south. Windsor Drive is a north-south, two-lane street, which is perpendicular to Florida Boulevard and dead-ends at the service road on the north side of Florida Boulevard.

At the time of the accident, the plaintiff, Jeffrey Michelli, was a passenger in a 2002 Honda Accord vehicle being driven by Allison Smith. Immediately before the accident, Ms. Smith was traveling eastbound on the service road north of Florida Boulevard, when she apparently decided to continue her eastbound route on Florida Boulevard itself, rather than on the service road. Ms. Smith turned right onto Windsor Drive from the service road, and stopped at a stop sign to wait for westbound traffic on Florida Boulevard to clear, so that she could cross the westbound lanes of traffic, and make a left-hand turn into an eastbound lane of traffic on Florida Boulevard. When traffic cleared, Ms. Smith crossed the westbound lanes of Florida Boulevard and entered a break in the median. While attempting to execute the left-hand turn, Ms. Smith struck a 1999 Chevrolet Cheyenne truck being driven northbound on Windsor Drive by Derek Hayes. Immediately before the accident, Mr. Hayes had stopped at a stop sign on the service road south of Florida Boulevard. As he proceeded from the stop sign, attempting to continue northbound across all four lanes of Florida Boulevard, the collision occurred in the left, or inside, eastbound lane of Florida Boulevard. Ms. Smith's vehicle was damaged across the front bumper and on the left front driver's side fender; Mr. Hayes' vehicle was damaged behind the driver's side door, where the cab of the truck met the bed of the truck.

Officer Brian Harrison, a Baton Rouge Police Department motorcycle officer, was dispatched to the accident scene. He took statements from both drivers and observed the location of the vehicles, which remained in their wrecked positions in the roadway. Based on the drivers' statements and the location of damage to their vehicles, Officer Harrison concluded Ms. Smith caused the accident and ticketed her for failure to yield on a left turn.

Ms. Smith and Mr. Michelli filed this personal injury suit against Mr. Hayes and his automobile liability insurer, Direct General Insurance Company of Louisiana (Direct General).2 Ms. Smith's claim was eventually dismissed for failure to attend her scheduled depositions. Mr. Michelli's claim ultimately proceeded to a bench trial. Although subpoenaed, Officer Harrison was not present at the trial, and the trial court denied Mr. Michelli's counsel's motion to continue the trial on this basis. The parties presented no live witnesses,3 but they introduced documentary evidence,4 and the trial court took the matter under advisement.

Later, after considering the pleadings, evidence, and argument of counsel, the trial court issued written reasons for judgment stating: (1) Ms. Smith was 50% at fault for failing "to see and observe [what] she obviously could and should have seen as a prudent and careful driver[;]" and (2) Mr. Hayes was 50% at fault for "[entering] the intersection when it was apparently not safe to do so." The trial court also determined the accident caused injuries to Mr. Michelli's shoulder, neck, and back, and that his damages totaled over $19,000. On March 28, 2012, the trial court signed a judgment in favor of Mr. Michelli and against Direct General for $9,534.16, representing 50% of Mr. Michelli's damages. Direct General appeals from the judgment, contending the trial court erred in failing to assess 100% of the fault to Ms. Smith.

Under applicable Louisiana traffic laws, Mr. Hayes and Ms. Smith each had a statutory duty to fulfill in this case. Mr. Hayes was proceeding from a stopped position at a stop sign, and Ms. Smith was a left-turning driver at an intersection. Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 32:123(B), after having stopped, a driver proceeding from a stop sign "shall yield the right-of-way5 to all vehicles which have entered the intersection from another highway or which are approaching so closely on said highway as to constitute an immediate hazard." Further, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 32:122, "[t]he driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard." These duties give a frame of reference within which to analyze the trial court's allocation of fault.

As with other factual determinations, the fact finder is vested with much discretion in its allocation of fault. Therefore, an appellate court should only disturb the fact finder's allocation of fault when it is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous. See Hebert v. Rapides Parish Police Jury, 06-2001, 06-2164 (La. 4/11/07), 974 So.2d 635, 654-56 (on rehearing). The allocation of fault is not an exact science or the search for one precise ratio, but rather an acceptable range, and any allocation by the fact finder within that range cannot be clearly wrong. Foley v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc., 06-0983 (La. 11/29/06), 946 So.2d 144, 166; Smegal v. Gettys, 10-0648 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/29/10), 48 So.3d 431, 439. In other words, where two or more permissible views of the evidence exist, the fact finder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. See Walley v. Vargas, 12-0022 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/21/12), 104 So.3d 93, 112; Wainwright v. Leary, 623 So.2d 233, 237 (La. App. 2nd Cir.), writ denied, 629 So.2d 1127 (La. 1993).

Having reviewed the entire record, we find no manifest error in the trial court's determination that Ms. Smith and Mr. Hayes were equally at fault in causing the accident. Despite Officer Harrison's opinion that Ms. Smith caused the accident,6 the trial court, as the trier of fact, was free to accept, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. See Walley, 104 So.3d at 112. In fact, when deposed, Officer Harrison admitted that he had no information as to which driver left his/her stop sign first, their respective speeds when crossing Florida Boulevard, or whether there was any oncoming traffic from either direction on Florida Boulevard before the impact. After reviewing all of the evidence, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Ms. Smith's statement that Mr. Hayes "pulled out in front of" her after she began her left-hand turn, a statement given immediately after the accident,7 was credible proof that Mr. Hayes entered the intersection "when it was apparently not safe to do so." See LSA-R.S. 32:123(B). After reading Officer Harrison's deposition and Ms. Smith's written statement and reviewing the crash report, photographs of the damaged vehicles, and other documentary evidence submitted at trial, we conclude that the trial court's allocation of fault is based on a permissible view of the evidence, falls within an acceptable range, and is not clearly wrong.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's March 28, 2012 judgment, assess all costs of this appeal to Direct General Insurance Company of Louisiana, and issue this opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(8).

AFFIRMED.